HISTORY  OF  THE  TRANSITION 


FROM 


PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  GOVERNMENT 

IN  MASSACHUSETTS 


BY 

HARRY  A.  CUSHING,  A.  M. 


SUBMITTED   IN   PARTIAL   FULFILMENT   OF   THE   REQUIREMENTS 

FOR   THE   DEGREE   OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1896 


-     *m      .rv      A 


F&tf 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  I.     The  Period  of  Transition. 

§  i.  The  Transition,  in  General 7 

§  2.  The  Transition  in  Massachusetts 12 

CHAPTER  II.     Elements   of   Antagonism    in    the    Provincial 
System. 

CHAPTER  III.     The  End  of  Provincial  Government. 

§  1.  The  Mandamus  Council 54 

§  2.  Withdrawal  of  the  Royal  Executive 61 

§  3.  Local  Action  in  the  Summer  of  1774 68 

§  4.  End  of  the  Provincial  Legislature 76 

§  5.  Closing  of  the  Provincial  Courts 84 

CHAPTER  IV.     Extra- Constitutional  Bodies. 

CHAPTER  V.     The  Provincial  Congress. 

§  1.  General  Review 112 

§  2.  Military  Affairs 132 

§  3.  Committee  of  Safety 139 

§  4.  Economic  Affairs 147 

§  5.  Public  Finance 151 

§  6.  Relations  with  the  Continental  Congress 159 

§  7.  The  Change  of  Government 164 

5 


QKO 


27035 


vj  CONTENTS 


PAGE 


CHAPTER  VI.     The  Charter  Resumed. 

§  i.  Provincial  Forms  in  the  Commonwealth 174 

§  2.  The  Issues  of  the  Period 184 

CHAPTER  VII.    The  Constitution  of  1778. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Action 194 

§  2.  Work  of  the  Convention 207 

§  3.  Submission  of  the  Constitution 214 

CHAPTER  VIII.     The  Constitution  of  1780. 

§  1.  Preliminary  Action 227 

§  2.  Work  of  the  Convention 231 

§  3.  Submission  of  the  Constitution 264 

CHAPTER  IX.     The  Transition  Completed. 

NOTE. 

LIST  OF  TITLES. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    PERIOD    OF   TRANSITION 

§  i.  The  Transition,  in  General 

THE  American  Revolution  presents  two  significant  and 
clearly  defined  series  of  events.  The  earlier  and  not  less 
important  includes  successive  attempts  to  terminate  certain 
administrative  relations  and  constituent  connections,  at- 
tempts which  resulted  not  simply  in  the  temporary  cessation 
of  governmental  relations,  but  also  in  the  severance  of  a 
part  of  the  American  dependencies  from  the  English  empire. 
Almost  contemporaneously  with  these  events  appeared  great 
activity  in  that  work  of  establishing  governments  which  made 
the  earlier  effort  of  the  revolutionists  effective  and  its  results 
permanent.  In  what  was  logically  the  earlier  of  these  two 
movements,  successful  revolt  annihilated  all  imperial  rela- 
tions. Those  who  were  one  day  colonists  of  England,  and  , 
who  the  next  were  by  their  own  sweeping  and  comforting 
philosophy  relegated  to  a  "  state  of  nature,"1  began  to  act, 

1  This  theory  appears  prominently  in  1780.  Cf.  Oration  by  Jonathan  Mason,  Jr., 
at  Boston,  March  6,  1780:  "As  a  reward  for  our  exertions  in  the  great  cause  of 
freedom,  we  are  now  in  the  possession  of  those  rights  and  privileges  attendant 
upon  the  original  state  of  nature,  with  the  opportunity  of  establishing  a  govern- 
ment for  ourselves,  independent  upon  any  nation  or  people  upon  earth."  Niles, 
Principles  and  Acts,  46. 

Cf.  Oration  by  Thomas  Dawes,  Jr.,  at  Boston,  March  5,  1781  :  "And  yet  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  have  reduced  to  practice  the  wonderful  theory.  A 
numerous  people  have  convened  in  a  state  of  nature,  and,  like  our  ideas  of  the 
patriarchs,  have  deputed  a  few  fathers  of  the  land  to  draw  up  for  them  a  glorious 
covenant."  Ibid.,  52.  "Johannes  in  Eremo "  published  a  letter  to  General 
Gage,  June  17,  1775,  in  which  he  said:  "You  also  know  that  those  acts  of  the 
7]     ■  7 


8  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [8 

with  a  growing  self-consciousness,  as  component  parts  of 
what  was  by  territorial  and  geographical  arrangement,  by 
race  and  language,  by  religion  and  by  political  traditions,  the 
germ  of  a  new  national  state.1  That  such  was  the  position 
of  the  Americans  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  the  history  of 
the  nation  has  made  evident.  The  striking  feature  of  the  con- 
stitutional rearrangement  within  the  nation  at  its  beginning 
was  the  appearance  of  the  Continental  Congress,  a  body 
among  whose  acquired  functions  was  recognized  the  respon- 
sibility and  right  to  represent  that  greater  body  of  individuals 
in  whom  had  become  vested  all  those  elements  and  inci- 
dents of  national  sovereignty  which  had  formerly  appertained 
to  the  king  in  parliament.  That  the  best  and  plainest  out- 
come of  the  Revolution  was  the  rise  of  a  new  nation  is  the 
lesson  which  by  the  progress  of  events  has  been  impressed 
upon  a  people  who,  by  reasoning  and  by  warfare,  have  been 
made  believers  in  the  nationalism  of  the  federalists. 

Yet  while  to  the  maturer  life  of  the  nation  the  sentiment 
of  nationality  born  of  the  Revolution  has  been  of  incalculable 
import,  it  played  a  relatively  less  important  part  in  the  later 
stages   of   that  movement   amid    which   it  first   arose.     The 

British  parliament,  which  you  have  avowedly  undertaken  to  carry  into  execution 
against  us  by  fire  and  sword,  are,  in  the  [sic]  own  nature  and  operation,  offensive 
acts  of  hostility  against  law,  English  liberty  and  constitutional  government  cf  the 
nation  in  general,  and  against  the  charter,  laws,  liberty,  property  and  lives  of  this 
v  in  partii  ular."  In  the  opinion  of  the  writer  the  enforcement  of  such  acts 
put  the  inhabitants  in  a  "state  of  nature,"  without  any  connexion  with  the  Eng- 
li>h  king.  The  taking  of  arms  would  no  longer  be  rebellion.  Gage  was  no 
longer  governi  r,  and,  furthermore,  "not  only  a  robber,  a  murderer  and  usurper, 
but  a  wicked  Rebel:  .  .  .  ."  Essex  Gazette,  vol.  VIE,  no.  363,  July  "6-13," 
177'  I  '  Benj.  Al.ii-.,  Dartmouth,  July  29,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams,  Boston: 
"  it  Appear!  to  me,  if  there  is  any  forte  in  the  Late  acts,  of  Parlament.  they 
have  Sett  u>.,  a  float,  that  is,  have  thrown  us  into  a  State  of  Nature:  we  Now 
have  a  fair  Opportunity  of  I  boosing  what  form  of  Goverment  we  think  proper, 
an-!,  Contract,  with  any  Nation,  we  pleas;  for  a  King  to  Rule  over  us."  Revolu- 
rretpH  III.,  277,  Barn  roft  Collection,  Lenox  Library. 
Burgess,  Political  Science  and  (  omparative  Constitutional  Law,  L,  100. 


g]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  g 

enthusiasm  of  being  "  an  American  "  could  win  battles,  and 
it  could  meet  well  its  test  at  the  time  which  "Novanglus" 
foresaw,  when  recourse  must  be  had  "  to  the  ratio  ultima 
of  Louis  XIV.  and  the  suprema  lex  of  the  king  of  Sardinia, — 
to  the  law  of  brickbats  and  cannon  balls,  which  can  be  an- 
swered only  by  brickbats  and  balls."  '  The  military  and 
diplomatic  successes  of  the  Revolution  must  be  recognized 
and  their  value  fitly  estimated.  But  what  seems  a  successful 
revolt  is  not  always  a  successful  revolution.  To  take  full 
advantage  of  the  good  work  on  the  field  and  in  the  cabinet  a 
firmly  established  and  well  organized  government  was  essen- 
tial. Such  to  the  central  body,  the  Continental  Congress, 
was  unknown  ;  such,  in  large  measure,  was  present  in  each 
of  those  territories  which  from  colonies  had  become  common- 
wealths. The  prominence  and  incapacity  of  the  central 
government  in  the  years  immediately  subsequent  to  the 
military  crisis  were  in  strong  contrast  with  the  efficiency  and 
the  quiet  conservatism  shown  by  those  bodies  of  the  people 
who  had  come  forth  from  the  constructive  work  of  the  first 
years  of  the  Revolution  organized  as  political  units.  In 
territorial  arrangement  these  portions  of  the  population, 
with  one  exception,2  coincided  with  the  earlier  colonies. 
Among   their   inhabitants  as  colonists    had   occurred    those 

1  Works  of  John  Adams,  iv.  38. 

2  Vermont  is  the  exception  here  referred  to.  The  earlier  relations  between  the 
New  Hampshire  Grants  and  the  royal  colonies  of  New  Hampshire,  New  York, 
and  Massachusetts,  make  the  history  of  the  origin  of  Vermont  somewhat  compli- 
cated. It  is  not  necessary  in  the  present  work  to  enter  into  any  explanation  of 
the  subject,  although  the  subsequent  grouping  of  the  Vermont  Constitution  of  1777 
with  the  other  constitutions  of  the  period  may  seem  to  require  justification,  since 
at  the  time  Vermont  was  not  recognized  as  a  state,  as  a  part  of  the  American 
system.  However,  the  theories  on  which  the  acts  of  the  inhabitants  of  that  re- 
gion were  based  were  in  many  respects  identical  with  the  theories  dominant  else- 
where on  the  continent,  and  the  result  of  work  under  such  conditions  may  prop- 
erly be  grouped  with  similar  results  elsewhere,  it  being  understood  that  no  identity 
of  constitutional  procedure  is  necessarily  implied. 


IO  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [IO 

events,  some  violent  in  character,  which  have  already  been 
broadly  classified  as  the  destructive  phase  of  the  Revo- 
lution ;  and  among  each  group,  acting  still  on  the  accus- 
tomed lines  of  political  sub-division,  had  arisen,  contempo- 
raneously with  the  immediate  beginnings  of  nationality 
already  noticed,  the  more  valuable  and  constructive  work, 
the  creation  of  commonwealth  governments.  To  these  is 
due  no  small  meed  of  credit  for  affording  the  nation  some 
degree  of  stability  and  order  during  the  period  when 
the  ostensibly  national  government  was  in  the  slough  of 
administrative  inefficiency  and  disintegrating  sectionalism ; 
to  them  are  to  be  traced  many  features  of  the  later  na- 
tional constitution.  In  them  was  brought  together  the 
content  of  the  charters,  the  legislation,  and  the  custom  of 
the  past,  and  with  them  began  the  modern  period 
wherein  the  written  constitution  appears  as  a  basis  of  gov- 
ernment. 

In  no  country  has  a  period  so  brief  been  marked  by  the 
promulgation  of  so  many  constitutions  as  the  decade  of  the 
American  Revolution.  No  period  of  activity  in  constitu- 
tional matters  can  compare  with  this  in  the  manner  in  which 
recognized  p^^apriety  of  procedure  was  forced  to  yield  to 
expediency.  (  In  none,  on  the  other  hand,  has  appeared  such 
a  degree  of  self-control  and  conservatism  as  has  stamped 
this  as  the  one  among  all  similar  periods  in  which  the 
people  have  gained  complete  control  of  constituent  power. 
In  spite  of  the  circumstances  amid  which  they  were 
formed,  thefconstitutions  of  the  Revolution  give  abundant 
evidence  of  wise  conservatism.  Monarchy  and  anarchy 
were  safely  avoided,  and  in  that  was  the  chief  success. 
With  the  exclusion  of  such  elements  assured,  full  play 
i-.'-n  to  the  political  instincts  of  both  conservatives  and 
radicals,  and  tin-  result  was  the  ultimate  combination  and 
definite   expression   of  the  political  theories   of  their  lead- 


1 1 1  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  T  Y 

ers,1  of  the  traditions  and  religious  tendencies  of  the  people,  of 
the  teachings  of  a  century  and  a  half  of  colonial  administra- 
tion, of  the  contemporaneous  political  philosophy  of  Europe, 
and  of  the  lessons  derived  from  the  growth  of  the  Eng- 
lish constitution.  The  new  written  constitutions  embodied 
and  reflected  the  nature  of  the  communities  for  which  they 
were  made.2  In  these  documents  the  shifting  of  the  source 
of  political  power  was  asserted,  and  the  assertion  was  main- 
tained. The  maintenance  of  this  made  permanent  the  con- 
stituent work  of  the  various  commonwealths  in  the  period 
under  review;  it  has  given  significance  and  historical  posi- 
tion to  the  decade  which  begins  with  the  'resumption'  of 
the  provincial  charter  of  Massachusetts  in  1775  and  ends 
with  the  promulgation  of  New  Hampshire's  second  constitu- 
tion in  1 784.3  The  year  of  independence  saw  the  completion 
of  eight  constitutions  4  and  the  adoption  of  two  royal  charters 

1  E.g.  John  Adams  to  Mrs.  Mercy  Warren,  July  11,  1807,  Collections  of  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society,  5  ser.  IV,  324. 

Cf.  Oration  of  Jonathan  W.  Austin,  at  Boston,  March  5,  1778.  Niles,  Prin- 
ciples and  Acts,  31. 

E.g.  Diary  of  Nathaniel  Ames,  December  30,  1777:  "  Club  began  to  read  Locks 
essay  on  Govmt."     Dedham  Hist.  Reg.,  Ill,  186. 

The  pamphlet,  Observations  upon  the  Present  Government  of  Pennsylvania, 
by  its  citation  of  political  writers,  reflects  the  amount  of  familiarity  with  standard 
writers  presumed  in  the  citizen. 

Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams,  III.,  22,  23. 

2 "The  Scite  and  Circumstances  in  which  your  Affairs  were  brought  in  the  year 
1776 :  and  your  self-consciousness  prompted  you  to  find  that  you  were  not  in  fact 
what  political  establishments  had  made  you  by  lazu,  .  .  ."  Pownall,  Memorial 
to  Sovereigns  of  America,  11. 

"The  next  peculiarity  to  be  found  in  these  states  is  that  we  have  established 
governments  amongst  us,  approaching  nearer  to  perfect  democracies  than  any  we 
have  accounts  of,  either  antient  or  modern;  all  power  whatever  is  vested  in,  and 
immediately  derived  from,  the  people  only;  .  .  ."  Observations  on  Govern, 
ment,  by  a  Farmer  of  Nezv  Jersey,  p.  50. 

3  A  scant  outline  of  the  period  is  given  in  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United 
States,  V.,  111-125,  404-422. 

4  In  Delaware,  Maryland,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  North  Carolina,  Penn- 
sylvania, South  Carolina,  and  Virginia. 


j  2  FR  O.V  PR  O  VINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEAL  TH  [  t  2 

as  the  basis  of  government;  «  the  following  year  was  marked 
by  the  adoption  of  three  more  constitutions;2  in  1778  one 
of  the  constitutions  of  'y6  3  was  superseded  by  a  more  ade- 
quate form,  and  the  period  was  rounded  out  by  the  adop- 
tion in  1784  and  1780,  respectively,  of  the  second  con- 
stitution of  New  Hampshire  and  of  the  constitution  of 
Massachusetts.  The  variety  of  procedure  was  great;  the 
divergence  of  theories  was  marked ;  the  results  were  by  no 
means  uniform.  In  the  whole  series  no  reorganization 
showed  such  distinct  types  and  characteristic  developments 
of  procedure,  such  political  ability  and  general  conservatism,4 
such  high  ideals,  such  generally  effective  intelligence,  such 
successful  results,  as  the  revolutionary  transition  from  the 
old  Province  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  to  the  new  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts.5 

§  2.   The  Transition  in  Massachusetts 
The  nature  of  the  population  of   Massachusetts,  its  atti- 
tude toward  the  home  government,6  and  the  existence  of  the 

1  In  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island. 

7  In  Georgia,  New  York,  and  Vermont.  John  Adams  was  not  wholly  correct 
when  he  wrote  to  James  Warren,  February  3,  1777 :  "Thus  I  think  there  are  but 
three  States  remaining  which  have  not  erected  their  governments,  Massachusetts, 
New  York,  and  New  Hampshire."      Works  of  John  Adams,  IX.,  451. 

'That  of  South  Carolina. 

*  Cf.  Action  of  MedfielJ,  December  29,  1773:  "while  we  profess  ourselves 
advocates  for  Rational  Constitutenal  Liberty  we  dont  mean  to  patrionise  Liber- 
tinesm  and  Licenteousness  we  are  sensible  of  the  necessety  of  Goverment  for  the 
Security  of  Life  Liberty  and  property  and  mean  to  vindecate  and  Submit  to  all 
Lawfull  Constitutional  authority."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection, 
I.,  C07. 

5  And  as  to  the  conclusion  of  the  movement,  and  the  adoption  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  1780:  "  For  the  purposes  of  science,  Massachusetts  must,  in  this  case,  be 
regarded  as  the  type  of  all  inlependeut,  civilized  communities,  to  which  it  is 
designed  to  present  a  model  of  government  adapted  to  secure  the  great  ends  of 
human  society."      Works  of  John  Adams,  IV.,  217. 

■ Cf.  Abingtoo   committee  to  Boston  committee,  April   27,  1773:    "Our  ever 


I  3  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  !  3 

township  system  early  made  that  province  appear  both  as 
an  obstinate  dependency  and  as  a  national  leader.  In 
each  capacity  she  reaped  her  reward.  The  development 
of  friction  in  administrative  affairs  made  it  possible  for  her  to 
appear  as  of  all  the  colonies  the  most  oppressed,  and 
gave  occasion  and  strength  to  the  growth  among  her  people 
of  a  political  school  of  the  "movement"  type,  the  wide  pre- 
valence of  whose  ideas  transformed  the  alleged  victim  of  the 
empire  into  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  nation.  From 
her  assembly  hall  went  forth  the  call  for  the  first  Continental 
Congress  ;  on  her  soil  political  opposition  first  became  armed 
antagonism.  The  chief  forces  at  work  in  the  inceptive  period 
of  the  Revolution  were  at  the  time  well  described  in  the  say- 
ing that  Massachusetts  led  the  nation,  that  Boston  directed 
Massachusetts,  and  that  Sam  Adams  controlled  the  Boston 
town-meeting.  So  placed  with  reference  to  continental 
affairs,  in  local  matters  Massachusetts  was  equally  adapted 
and  committed  to  the  program  of  the  "  movement "  party. 
Her  government  passed  out  of  royal  hands  before  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  had  been  in  session  a  month  ;  after  a  par- 
tially successful  appeal  for  the  advice  of  the  Continental 
Congress  hers  was  the  first  government  to  be  placed  on  a 
new,  although  confessedly  temporary,  foundation;  and  from 
one  of  her  leaders  went  forth  to  the  other  colonies  one  of 
the  strongest  single  lines  of  influence  toward  the  speedy 
erection  of  commonwealth  governments.  Massachusetts 
endorsed   heartily,  even   if   for  the    time   incompletely,    the 

loyal  Province  of  the  Massachussetts-Bay  has  long  stood  the  Butt  of  Ministerial 
Vengence,  and  a  Number  of  our  Sister  Colonies,  have  not  only  had  now  and  then 
a  random  Shot,  but  Some  of  them  begin  to  feal  the  infernal  Smart  of  the  plaguy 
Sting,  but  to  the  praise  of  GOD  be  it  Spoken  American  Vertue  is  not  totally  ex- 
tinct, but  far  otherwise  no  Gentlemen  it  has  lately  buded,  and  is  pleasantly  blos- 
soming and  We  ardently  pray  it's  fruit  may  be  brought  to  consumate  maturity." 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I,  ill. 


I4  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [14 

principal  features  of  John  Adams'  plan1  of  political  cam- 
paign ;  and  it  was  toward  the  full  realization  of  his  policy  in 
the  complete  establishment  of  commonwealth  government 
that  the  leaders  aimed  consistently  during  the  few  years  of 
the  distinctly  transitional  period.2 

The  time  of  reorganization  in  Massachusetts  is  marked  by 
a  variety  of  clear  characteristics  ;  it  is,  as  well,  divided  into 
distinct  periods.  The  underlying  causes  of  the  change  ap- 
pear in  the  strong  difference  in  religious  types3  between  the 
home  country  and  its  colony,  in  the  wholly  different  social 
surroundings  and  influences,4  in  the  increasing,  if  not  even 
hostile,  divergence  of  economic  interests  and  activity,  and  in 
the  almost  antipodal  political  traditions5  nourished  and  acted 

1  Cf.  J.  Adams  to  P.  Henry  :  Philadelphia,  June  3,  1776;  Works  of  John  Adams, 
IX.,  387. 

Cf.  Collections  of  Mass.  Historical  Society,  5  ser.,  IV.  349,  350. 

2 E.g.  William  Gordon's  sermon  before  the  Mass.  Assembly,  July  4,  1777: 
"...  let  us  mould  the  governments  of  the  respective  states,  .  .  .  .  ,  so  as  not 
only  to  exclude  kings,  but  tyranny,  and,  as  ever,  to  retain  the  supreme  authority 
in  the  people,  together  with  the  power,  no  less  than  the  right  of  calling  their 
delegated  agents  to  account,  whether  they  sit  in  the  assembly,  the  council,  the 
chair,  or  the  Congress."     Patriot  Preachers  of  the  American  Revolution,  183,  184. 

3  In  short,  the  only  Difference  between  an  Old  and  a  New-English  Man  is  in  his 
Religion;  .  .  .  ."  Daniel  Neal,  7 'he  History  of  New- England,  London,  1720, 
p.  614.     Cf.  Doyle,  The  Puritan  Colonies,  I.,  14. 

*  The  Pennsylvania  Evening  Post,  vol.  II.,  no.  179,  March  14,  1776,  has  some 
significant  material,  and  especially  so  as  referring  simply  to  the  colonial  city  class: 
"  Is  not  one  half  of  the  property  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  owned  by  men  who 
wear  leathern  aprons?  Does  not  the  other  half  belong  to  men  whose  fathers 
or  grandfathers  wore  LEATHERN  APRONS?" 

5  In  1853,  Mr.  Grisvvold  of  Erving,  speaking  of  Massachusetts,  said :  "Her 
town-meetings  alone  could  not  have  existed  as  they  existed  before  the  Revolution 
without  leading  to  that  important  event."  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1853,  828. 

"The  proceedings  of  the  Provincial  Assemblies  of  Plymouth,  in  1636,  of  Mary- 
land, in  1C50,  of  Rhode-Island,  in  1663,  °f  New- York,  in  1691,  and  of  Massa- 
chusetts, in  1692,  may  be  referred  to,  as  showing  how  deeply  rooted  and  how 
widely  diffused,  even  at  these  remote  periods,  were  the  true  and  essential  prin- 
ciples which,  subsequently  expanding  into  maturity,  produced  the  fruits  of  the 
American  Revolution."     4  .American  Archives,  I.,  preface,  p.  2. 


j  c ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  T  5 

upon  by  the  more  advanced  colonists  on  the  one  hand,  and, 
on  the  other,  by  the  more  conservative  Englishmen.  In  the 
discussion,  furthermore,  on  the  independence  of  the  judiciary, 
in  the  contest  for  the  conlrol  of  the  finances  and  the  inciden- 
tal control  of  the  executive,  in  the  various  and  protracted 
disputes  between  the  legislative  and  executive  branches  of  the 
government,  in  the  parliamentary  legislation  on  colonial 
trade  and  manufactures,  and  in  the  final  interference  with 
the  guarantees  of  the  provincial  charter,  are  indicated  some 
of  the  salient  points  in  the  long  history  of  growing  oppo- 
sition, silent  or  avowed,  between  the  home  government 
and  the  colonists.  The  climax  of  expression  is  found,  on 
the  one  hand,  in  certain  acts  of  parliament  of  1774,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  not  only  in  the  coup  d'itat  of  June  17, 
1774,  at  the  Salem  court  house,  but  also  in  such  resolves 
as  those  of  Suffolk  county  in  the  following  September,  and 
of  the  Continental  Congress  in  June,  1775.  The  closing 
phases  of  this  preliminary  period  are  illustrated  by  the  stat- 
utory alteration  by  parliament  of  the  constitution  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts council.  The  attempt  to  bring  the  colony  into 
line  on  the  basis  of  a  largely  centralized  imperial  system 
precedes  but  shortly  the  overthrow  of  the  royal  government. 
With  that  event,  in  October,  1774,  the  provincial  times  end, 
and  the  period  of  revolution  begins.  The  constructive 
"abdication"  of  the  royal  executive  is  followed  by  the  end 
of  the  royal  assembly,  and  followed  also  by  the  organization 
of  the  so-called  Provincial  Congress. 

The  rule  of  the  Provincial  Congresses  x  extended  from  Oc- 
tober, 1774,  to  July,  1775,  and  tided  over  with  success  the 
months  when  "civil  government,  legislation,  judicial  pro- 
ceedings and  commercial  regulations  were  in  Massachusetts, 
to  all  appearance,  annihilated,"  and  when  the  prevailing  dis- 

'The  Proceedings  are  given  in  journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Mass., 
Boston,  1838. 


!6  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [l6 

position  of  the  people  gave  to  the  resolutions  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress  all  "the  weight  and  efficacy  of  laws."1 
"And  in  every  colony  the  votes  of  a  congress  .  .  .  had  equal 
effect  with  the  laws  of  great  and  general  courts." 2  The 
dangers  of  approaching  anarchy  threw  into  sharper  prom- 
inence the  conservatism  and  the  self  restraint  of  the  people 
during  these  months ;  the  general  revulsion  against  the  royal 
government  was  closely  followed  by  an  equally  widespread 
and  profound  acquiescence  in  the  administrative  leadership 
of  the  Provincial  Congress.  No  more  striking  instance  of 
political  vitality  can  be  adduced  than  the  unity,  the  pro- 
priety, and  the  vigor  of  the  action  of  Massachusetts,  of  her 
politicians  and  of  her  people,  during  these  few  hazardous 
months.  Then  was  strong  justification  given  to  the  theory 
which  George  Cabot  later3  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Theo- 
philus  Parsons:  "All  governments  rest  on  opinion.  Free 
governments,  especially,  depend  on  popular  opinion  for  their 
existence,  and  on  popular  approbation  for  their  force ;  if, 
therefore,  just  opinions  and  right  sentiments  do  not  prevail 
in  the  community,  such  systems  must  necessarily  perish."  4 
Such  "right"  sentiments,  however,  did  prevail  in  Massachu- 
setts and  made  possible  the  gradual  and  firm  assumption  by 
the  Provincial  Congress  of  powers  of  wide  extent  and  im- 
portant meaning.  To  be  sure,  the  Congress  did  not  sup- 
pose itself  vested  with  sovereign  powers,  as  did  similar  bod- 
ies elsewhere;  but  its  voluntary  recognition  of  the  people 
as  the  ultimate  source  of  political  power  was  the  only  im- 
portant limitation  upon  the  competency  of   its  action.     On 

1  Ramsay,  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  Phila.,  1789,  I.,  131. 

2  Langdon's  Sermon  before  Mass.  Assembly,  May  31,  1775,  Patriot  Preachers 
cf  the  American  Revolution,  69.  Cf.  Ramsay,  History  of  the  American  Revolu- 
tion, I.,  132. 

:|  August  12,  1794. 

*  Memoir  of  Theophilus  Parsons,  by  his  son,  Boston,  1861,  p.  471. 


j  7]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHU SETTS  T  y 

this  basis  a  large  amount  of  legislative  and  administrative 
business  was  accomplished  ;  attention  was  given  to  a  wide 
range  of  affairs,  from  finances  and  the  judiciary  to  manu- 
factures and  military  supplies ;  with  committees  and  single 
administrative  officials  a  tolerably  systematic  organization 
was  effected.  The  imperfections  in  organization  were, 
furthermore,  counterbalanced  by  the  unusual  character  and 
indulgent  temperament  of  the  people.  The  activity  of  the 
Congress  was  timely  and  well-planned ;  the  carriage  of  the 
body  was  characterized  by  unassuming  dignity  and  by  honest 
effort  at  propriety;  and  these  characteristics  were  enhanced 
by  its  conservatism  when,  able  almost  to  grasp  a  dictatorial 
power,  it  thrice  effected  willingly  its  own  dissolution,  and 
prepared  thus  for  the  further  development  of  the  government 
of  the  people. 

The  appeal  of  the  second  Provincial  Congress  drew  from 
the  Continental  Congress  the  advice  to  "conform,  as  near  as 
may  be,  to  the  spirit  and  substance  of  the  charter"  of  1691. 
The  advice  was  promptly  adopted.  The  third  Provincial 
Congress  caused  the  issue  of  writs  of  election  for  a  new 
house  of  representatives,  and  in  July,  1775,  these  rep- 
resentatives met,  chose  a  council  of  twenty-eight  to  serve 
both  as  a  second  branch  of  the  legislature  and  as  an  ex- 
ecutive, and  inaugurated  thus  a  period  of  rule  in  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  of  the  royal  charter,  modified  in  prac- 
tice by  an  extra-constitutional  provision  for  the  exercise  of 
the  executive  functions.  "Thus,  after  living  for  more  than 
twelve  months  without  any  legal  government,  without  laws, 
and  without  any  regular  administration  of  justice,  but  what 
arose  from  the  internal  sense  of  moral  obligation,  .  .  . ,  the 
Massachusetts  returned  peaceably  to  the  regular  and  neces- 
sary subordination  of  civil  society."1  There  had  been  a 
legal  government  within   a   twelvemonth,   and   theoretically 

1  Warren,  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  Boston,  1805,  I.,  226,  227. 


!3  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  \\% 

there  still  was  one ;  but  as  the  usurpation  had  been  begun 
by  the  Provincial  Congress,  so  now  the  work  was  taken  up 
by  a  provisional  government  of  better  organization,  resting 
on  a  surer  basis,  and  the  existence  of  which  could  be  more 
easily  justified. 

The  use  of  the  provincial  charter  as  a  basis  of  government 
marks  a  distinct  division  in  the  transitional  period,  and 
covers  the  time  from  July  19,  1775,  to  October  25,  1780. 
The  assembly  which  met  in  accordance  with  that  charter 
succeeded  a  confessedly  revolutionary  body;  this  later  as- 
sembly was  itself  succeeded  by  a  body  created  by  a  written 
form  of  government  to  which  success  in  war  had  already 
given  the  pledge  of  future  legitimacy ;  and  the  constitu- 
tional character  of  this  last  organization  was  established  as 
one  of  the  incidents  of  a  finally  successful  revolution. 
During  this  half  decade,  as  already  indicated,  the  forms  of 
government  and  of  procedure  corresponded  with  those  of  the 
provincial  period ;  but  it  was  for  a  provincial  period  that  the 
document  was  prepared  ;  it  was  not  formed  by  royalty  to 
serve  a  democratic  commonwealth,  and  such  service  would 
be  both  incongruous  and  inconvenient.  This  period,  thus,  be- 
came marked  by  the  first  constituent  proceedings  in  Massa- 
chusetts, by  the  first  instance  in  any  of  the  commonwealths 
of  the  submission  to  popular  action  of  a  new  constitution,  and, 
further,  by  the  rejection  on  the  part  of  the  people,  acting  in 
their  town-meetings,  of  this  constitution  of  1778.  The  move- 
ment for  anew  constitution,  with  new  method  of  procedure, 
resulted  successfully  in  the  ratification  by  the  people  of  the 
constitution  of  1780.  With  the  inauguration  of  John  Han- 
cock as  governor,  on  October  25,  1780,  the  last  period  of  the 
transition  closed  and  the  history  of  the  new  commonwealth 
besan. 


CHAPTER  II 

ELEMENTS    OF   ANTAGONISM    IN   THE   PROVINCIAL   SYSTEM 

A  STUDY  of  English  colonial  administration  reveals  the 
distinction  obtaining  between  a  royal  province  and  a  de- 
pendency in  which  the  development  of  a  chartered  corpora- 
tion into  a  "  corporate  colony  "J  tended  seriously  to  limit  the 
royal  power.  Such  a  theoretical  distinction  became  a  prac- 
tical antagonism  when  finally  in  Massachusetts  the  effort  was 
made  to  maintain  a  government  containing  elements  of  both 
systems.  The  effort  occasioned  many  events  and  expres- 
sions which  made  it  plain  that  harmony  between  the  provin- 
cial and  commonwealth  principles  was  impossible,  and  which 
foreboded  in  no  uncertain  way  the  time  when  the  anomalous 
conditions  should  be  removed,  even  if  by  acts  so  radical  as 
to  constitute  a  revolution. 

The  forms  and  powers  of  government  in  provincial 
Massachusetts  were  plainly  lacking  in  consistency ; 2  in 
connection  with  them,  as  well,  arose  contests  for  which  at 
the  first  there  appeared  no  possible  occasion.  Among  these 
latter  was  the  dispute  over  the  rights  of  town  representation, 

1  See  Osgood,  The  Colonial  Corporation. 

2  Cf.  "  Reasons  for  a  Declaration  of  the  Independence  of  the  American  Col- 
onies." The  first  is :  "  The  Colonies  will  be  delivered  from  two  Governments 
directly  opposed  to  each  other."  4  American  Archives,  V.,  992.  Cf.  Instruc- 
tions of  Lexington  to  representative,  December  31,  1772:  "  But  this  is  not  all — 
Our  Charter  knows  no  such  thing  as  Instructions  to  Governors;  and  yet,  what 
have  not  Instructions  done  to  distress  this  People !"  Revolutionary  Corresp., 
Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  497. 

19]  19 


20  FROM  PRO  VIA 'CIA L   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [2o 

a  dispute  whicii  well  illustrates  one  phase  of  the  inconsist- 
ency and  defines  clearly  the  antagonism  of  the  parties  in- 
volved. The  town  system  had  been  formed  in  the  early 
colonial  period;  by  the  charter  of  1691  its  existence  was 
presumed  and  its  continuance  assured,  and  thereafter  new 
towns  were  frequently  incorporated  by  act  of  the  General 
Court.  Such  incorporation  by  the  division  of  older  towns, 
or  by  the  erection  of  distinct  towns  on  newly  settled  terri- 
tory, was  naturally  made  necessary  by  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation or  by  its  dispersion.  It  had  long  been  in  accordance 
with  the  recognized  theory,  and  it  had,  as  well,  been  the 
customary  practice  of  the  legislature,  to  consider  the  right  of 
representation  in  the  General  Court  as  an  incident  of  town 
incorporation.  Such  a  theory  had  met  with  no  serious 
opposition  until  three  bills,  for  dividing  as  many  townships, 
were,  in  1742,  presented  to  Governor  Shirley.  His  action 
on  this  occasion  created  a  new  problem  in  colonial  politics. 
Far  from  immediately  assenting  to  the  bills,  the  governor 
transmitted  them  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  with  suggestive  com- 
ment. The  fact  that  these  bills  would,  at  a  stroke,  double 
the  legislative  representation  of  a  given  area,  prompted  him 
to  investigate  the  practice  since  1692,  and  he  found  that 
since  that  time  thirty-three  new  towns  had  been  erected  by 
such  means,  and  that  the  practice  of  thus  forming  two  or 
even  three  towns  out  of  a  single  town  had  increased  greatly 
in  the  later  years,  sixteen  of  the  thirty-three  bills  having  been 
passed  in  Governor  Belcher's  administration.  Shirley  further 
based  his  opposition  to  the  bills  on  the  fact  that  the  erection 
of  new  precincts  and  parishes  would  secure  equally  well  all 
administrative  advantages  which  the  town  system  might 
accord.  He  more  pointedly  referred  to  the  embarrassment 
of  the  past,  and  to  the  feasibility  of  checking  the  division  of 
towns,  in  which  connection  he  bluntly  proposed  "to  put  an 
end  to  this  way  of  increasing  the  number  of  Representatives, 


2  i  ]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  2  I 

which  seems  to  promise  no  good  effect  for  his  Majesty's 
service  .   .  ."  x 

The  position  taken  by  Shirley  was  upheld  by  the  Lords  of 
Trade  in  a  report  of  June  8,  1743,  and  was  further  endorsed 
by  an  order  in  council  of  August  II,  1743,  which  approved 
the  draught  of  an  additional  instruction  to  Governor  Shirley. 
By  this  the  new  position  of  the  administration  was  stated. 
Reference  was  made  to  the  possible  inconvenience  of  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  towns  by  division,  as  well  as  to  the 
possibility  that  all  essential  political  functions  might  be  per- 
formed fully  as  well  if  the  population  should  be  organized 
into  precincts,  parishes,  or  villages,  without  rights  of  rep- 
resentation. The  effective  portion  is  seen  in  the  direction 
that  the  governor  should  assent  to  no  bill  erecting  a  new 
town  or  dividing  an  old  one,  unless  the  bill  should  contain 
a  clause  suspending  the  execution  thereof  until  the  king's 
pleasure  should  be  known.2 

The  policy  thus  defined  was  not  the  policy  of  a  year  or  of 
a  ministry,  but  was  a  factor  in  the  political  development  of 
Massachusetts  from  the  time  of  its  announcement  to  the  time 
of  the  Revolution.  Thus,  in  1 756,  the  Lords  of  Trade  enjoined 
upon  Governor  Shirley  more  care  in  the  observance  of  the 
additional  instruction;3  and  the  first  act  of  the  session  of  the 
following  year  was  disallowed  by  the  privy  council,  as  the 

1  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  III.,  70,  71.  Gov.  Shirley  to 
Lords  of  Trade,  October  18,  1742.  In  this  report  he  says  there  were  at  the  time 
160  towns,  of  which  most  were  entitJed  to  two  representatives,  although  none 
but  Boston,  Salem,  Ipswich,  and  Newbury  ever  sent  more  than  one;  "and  very 
few  or  none  of  the  new  Towns  ever  send  any;"  but  if  friction  should  arise  on 
any  point  the  number  in  the  house  could  be  almost  trebled. 

2  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  III.,  72. 

3  Acts  of  1753— '54,  chaps.  35,  37,  38,  erecting  respectively  the  towns  of  Lincoln, 
Greenwich,  and  Petersham,  granted  full  power  of  representation,  and  did  not  con- 
tain the  suspending  clause;  Shirley's  attention  was  called  to  this  in  the  letter  of 
the  Lords  of  Trade  of  April  13,  1756,  but  the  acts  were  not  repealed,  owing  to 
the  inconvenience  that  might  be  occasioned.     Ibid.,  III.,  745. 


22  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [22 

instruction  of  1743  had  been  repeated  to  Governor  Pownall.1 
It  was  when  this  bill  had  passed  both  houses  that  Thomas 
Hutchinson,  in  the  council,  asked  to  enter  his  dissent,  assign- 
ing as  one  of  his  reasons  therefor  the  fact  that  an  increased 
number  of  representatives  "  must  likewise  give  that  House  an 
undue  proportion  to  the  Board  in  the  Legislature  where 
many  affairs  are  determined  by  a  joint  Ballot  of  the  two 
Houses.''2  The  report  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  on  the  same 
bill  affirmed  that  the  act  was  for  the  sole  purpose  of  giving 
the  town  a  representation  in  the  assembly,  and  that  the 
practice  had  "formerly  by  its  frequency  been  found  to  pro- 
duce many  inconveniences  and  particularly  that  of  continu- 
ally increasing  the  number  of  Representatives,  .  .  ."  3 

A  brief  lapse  in  the  force  of  earlier  instructions  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  death  of  the  sovereign,  of  which  period  the 
Lords  of  Trade  wrote  that  in  their  opinion  acts  for  creating 
townships  which  had  no  reference  to  the  right  of  choosing 
representatives  were  most  nearly  in  accordance  with  the  act 
of  1 692/  The  view  of  the  situation,  from  one  side,  was  now 
given  by  Governor  Bernard  when  he  wrote:  "It  is  also 
obvious  that  the  new  Settled  Counties  have  a  right  to  be 
represented.  But  yet  there  is  such  danger  to  be  appre- 
hended from  the  house  of  Representatives  continually  in- 
creasing that  it  is  time  to  put  a  stop  to  it  by  some  means, 
tho'  it  were  to  be  wished  that  it  could  be  done  without  deny- 
ing new  Settlers  the  natural  and  constitutional  right  of  being 
represented.     The  increase  of  the  number  of  Representatives 

'Acts  1757— '58,  chap.  1,  erecting  the  town  of  Danvers  wnh  full  powers,  was 
disallowed  by  the  Privy  Council,  August  10,  1759.  Ibid.,  IV.,  5;  Cf.  Ibid.,  IV., 
93,  94.  Yet  Danvers  after  1758  was  recognized  in  the  house;  Cf.  Acts  of 
1 772— '73,  chap.  17;    Cf.  Ibid.,  V.,  268. 

2  Ibid.,  IV.,  93.  :!  Ibid.,  IV.,  5. 

4 To  Gov.  Bernard,  November  25,  1761.  Ibid.,  IV.,  452.  Silence  as  to  repre- 
sentation would  imply  the  right  to  such;  where  rights  of  representation  were 
withheld  an  explicit  reservation  was  made. 


23]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  23 

seems  to  endanger  the  Constitution  itself.  ...  In  the  year 
1 71 8  there  were  but  91  Writs  issued,1  in  1692  when  the 
Charter  was  opened  probably  not  above  84,  Now  there  is 
near  170  And  yet  the  Council  keeps  its  old  Number  of  28, 
So  that  the  Assembly  were  to  the  Council  at  the  time  of 
their  first  meeting  as  3  to  I  now  they  are  6  to  I  and  conse- 
quently the  Councils  share  in  elections  is  diminished  by 
half."2  The  right  of  the  colonial  position  was  virtually  con- 
ceded by  the  Lords  of  Trade  in  the  next  year,  though  they  also 
replied  to  Bernard  and  warmly  agreed  with  his  opinion  that 
the  increase  of  the  number  of  representatives  without  a  cor- 
responding addition  to  the  power  of  the  council  would  cer- 
tainly "have  very  pernicious  consequences  and  destroy  that 
Balance  which  we  presume  was  originally  intended  to  be 
kept  up  between  the  Upper  and  Lower  House  of  Assembly."3 
In  the  later  years  some  of  the  towns  incorporated  upon 
newly  settled  lands  beyond  the  limits  of  the  earlier  towns 
received  the  right  of-  separate  representation ;  and  in  this 
connection  Lieutenant  Governor  Hutchinson,  referring  to  the 
acts  of  the  last  session,  wrote  in  1771  that  they  seemed  not 
to  require  remark  or  explanation,  except  a  possible  apol- 
ogy for  "  consenting  to  so  many  New  Towns  without  except- 
ing a  Privilege  of  sending  Representatives.  They  are  all 
made  out  of  new  Territory  which  never  was  before  incorpor- 
ated and  my  consent  is  warranted  by  the  practice  of  my 
Predecessor  in  consequence  of  directions  he  received.4     As 

'Neal,  History  of  New  England,  1720,  speaks  of  the  house  as  having  103 
members,  p.  605 ;  and  in  the  appendix  gives  a  list  of  council  and  house,  naming 
98  of  the"  latter  with  five  vacancies.     Ibid.,  710-712. 

2  To  Lords  of  Trade,  August  3,  1761.  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of 
Mass.  Bay,    IV.,  451. 

3 To  Gov.  Bernard,  June  11,  1762.     Ibid.,  IV.,  452.     Cf.  Ibid.,  IV.,  451,  453. 

*Thus  we  find  towns  incorporated,  especially  in  the  border  counties,  with  full 
rights  of  representation.  E.g.:  Gageborough,  Berkshire  Co.,  Acts  of  1771-72, 
chap.  6;   Partridgefield,  Berkshire  Co.,  Acts  of  1771-72,  chap.  7;   Buxton,  York 


24  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [24 

there  is  a  prospect  of  many  such  Townships  being  incorpor- 
ated every  year  the  House  of  Representatives  will  soon  swell 
to  an  enormous  size."1  That  the  restrictive  policy,  however, 
was  retained  to  the  end,  even  if  not  in  all  instances  applied, 
is  shown  by  the  course  of  Hutchinson  when,  as  governor,  he 
assented  to  an  act2  erecting  out  of  the  territory  of  Spring- 
field the  town  of  West  Springfield  with  no  limitation  as  to 
representation,  an  assent  which  in  April,  1774,  he  explained 
thus :  "  I  must  acknowledge  I  gave  my  assent  suddenly  and 
upon  further  consideration  should  have  refused  it.  Seeing 
the  increase  of  weight  will  in  some  degree  follow  the  increase 
of  numbers  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  it  requires  some 
provision  to  prevent  such  increase  of  numbers."3 

The  policy  thus  was  repeatedly  expressed ;  its  applica- 
tion was  as  frequently  enforced,  and  with  such  uniformity 
that  the  situation  developed  what  was  for  the  colonist  a  ques- 
tion of  vital  importance.  The  right  of  town  representation 
was  a  right  sacred  in  colonial  tradition ;  its  limitation  now 
upon  grounds  of  political  policy  would  subject  colonial  theo- 
ries to  a  revision,  and  would  lead  directly  to  a  more  or  less 
complete  disappearance  of  local  participation  in  provincial 
politics.  The  complete  political  subordination  of  the  pro- 
vincial population  to  a  distant  administration  would  result 
from  the  success  of  the  ministerial  purpose ;   and  the  blunt 

Co.,  Acts  of  1772-73,  chap.  10;  Loudon,  Berkshire  Co.,  Acts  of  1 772— '73,  chap. 
37;  Ilallowcll.  Lincoln  Co.,  Acts  of  I'j'jo-'ji,  chap.  27;  Winthrop,  Lincoln  Co., 
Acts  of  I770-'7I,  chap.  30;  Vassalborough,  Lincoln  Co.,  Acts  of  I770-'7I,  chap. 
33;  Belfast,  Lincoln  Co.,  Acts  of  1773— '74,  chap.  3;  Waldoborough,  Lincoln 
Co.,  Acts  of  I773~'74,  chap.  4;  Edgcomb,  Lincoln  Co.,  Acts  of  I773~'74,  chap. 
21;  New  Cloucester,  Cumberland  Co.,  Acts  of  1773— '74,  chap.  22;  Pownal- 
borough,  on  the  Kennebec,  Acts  of  i759~'6o,  chap.  23;  on  this  last  case  cf 
Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  IV.,  350,  351. 

'To  Secretary  Pownall,  May  16,  1771.     Ibid.,  V.,  139. 

2  Acts  of  1773— '74,  chap.  26. 

3  To  Lords  of  Trade,  April  5,  1774.     Ibid.,  V.,  380. 


25]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  2 5 

expression  of  the  reasons  of  that  purpose  did  not  tend  to 
improve  the  attitude  taken  by  the  colonists.  Their  contest 
was  now  one  for  essential  rights,  as  well  as  for  the  maintenance 
of  theory.  That  their  grievance  was  not  light  is  apparent 
from  the  wide  extent  to  which  was  experienced  this  denial 
of  an  important  political  function.1  The  spirit  of  the  home 
government  was  shown,  and  by  it  the  temper  of  the  people 
was  being  prepared  for  the  future.  They  were  now  taught 
that  their  interests  were  not  the  interests  of  their  governors, 
and  that  for  the  maintenance  of  their  political  rights  they 
must  depend  on  themselves  alone.  The  theories  upheld  on 
the  two  sides  of  the  water  now  brought  factors  in  the  same 
government,  which  were  normally  interdependent,  into  a 
relation    of   antagonism.2     For  the  present,  to  be  sure,  the 

1  Thus  we  find  the  erection  of  districts  with  full  town  rights  except  that  of 
representation;  e.  g.:  Palmer,  Acts  of  1751— '52,  chap.  15;  Shirley,  Acts  of 
1 752— '53,  chap.  9;  Southampton,  Acts  of  175 2— '53,  chap.  10;  Greenfield,  Acts  of 
1753— '54,  chap.  3;  Newcastle,  Acts  of  1753— '54,  chap.  4;  Granville,  Acts  of 
i753-'54,  chap.  21 ;  Cf.  Acts  of  1752-53,  chaps.  23,  24,  25,  26;  Acts  of  1753— '54, 
chaps.  2,  22,  36;  Acts  of  1754— '55,  chap.  14;  Acts  of  1758— '59,  chap.  12;  Acts 
of  i759-'6o,  chaps.  3,  5,  6,  7,  22,  39. 

Likewise  towns  were  erected  with  all  powers  except  that  of  representation;  e.g.: 
Colrain,  Acts  of  i76i-'62,  chap.  10;  Whately,  Acts  of  i770-'7i,  chap.  22.  In 
the  last  case  it  was  provided  that  the  town  should  join  with  Hatfield,  out  of 
which  it  was  erected,  in  the  choice  of  representatives.  So  when  the  north 
parish  of  Sheffield  was  made  the  town  of  Great  Barrington,  it  was  provided  that 
the  new  town  should  join  with  the  older  in  choosing  a  representative;  Acts  of 
i76i-'62,  chap.  9.  So  when  the  district  of  Alford  was  incorporated  it  was  pro- 
vided that  it  should  join  Great  Barrington,  Sheffield,  and  Egremont  in  the  choice 
of  a  representative;   Acts  of    1772-73,  chap.  36;   Cf.  Acts  of  1773— '74,  chap.  27. 

When  the  town  of  Pittsfield  was  erected,  April  21,  1761,  it  was  provided  that 
it  should  not  elect  a  representative  until  the  general  election  of  May,  1763;  Acts 
of  i76o-'6i,  chap.  34. 

2  It  may  be  held  that  the  antagonism  was  one  of  theory;  in  actual  exercise  of 
this  right  the  colonists  had  not  been  forward,  as  is  shown  repeatedly  by  a 
comparison  between  the  number  of  the  house  and  the  number  which  it  might 
legally  have  contained.  In  many  quarters  self-interest  made  impossible  any  strong 
demand  for  the  complete  retention  of  what  by  some  had  been  deemed  a  burden. 
The  act  of  1751-52,  chap.  15,  erects  the  district  of  Palmer,  and  grants  full  town 


26  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [26 

antagonism  was  not  violent;  the  loss  of  representation 
meant  for  each  town  a  lower  tax  rate,  and  that  could  well 
repay  the  waiving  of  certain  intangible  rights.1  When,  how- 
ever, men  came  to  the  turn  of  affairs  at  which  a  theory  or  a 
principle  was  maintained  for  itself  alone,  the  attitude  of  the 
colonists  was  more  positive.  The  significance  of  the  earlier 
course  was  plain,  and  the  knowledge  of  its  meaning  could 
not  fail  to  make  more  pronounced  the  views  of  the  revolu- 
tionists. Among  those  few  acts  passed  on  the  17  June,  1774, 
was  one  for  the  erection  of  the  town  of  Hutchinson  without 
any  restriction  as  to  its  rights  of  representation,  and  the  act,2 
although  passed  under  a  royal  governor,  was  indicative  of 
the  tendency  of  the  time  and  of  the  course  which  later  action 
on  the  subject  was  to  take.  One  of  the  first  acts  passed  by 
the  General  Court  in  1775,  after  the  resumption  of  the 
charter,  was  that  which  removed  all  conditions  imposed  in 
the  earlier  incorporation  of  towns,  and  which,  furthermore, 
granted  to  all  incorporated  districts  both  the  status  of  towns 

rights  except  that  of  representation,  "  which,  it  is  represented,  said  inhabitants 
are  not  at  present  desirous  of."  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay, 
III.,  599.  Near  the  close  of  the  session  of  i76o-'6i,  four  bills  were  sent  to  the 
governor  erecting  the  towns  of  Colrain,  Tyringham,  Sandislield,  and  Becket;  the 
towns  had  been  willing  to  waive  the  right  of  representation  but  the  house 
refused  to  allow  them  to  waive  the  point;  the  bills  accordingly  were  rejected. 
Pittsfield  was  incorporated  by  a  bill  passed  by  the  same  assembly,  but  the 
approval  of  the  bill  was  based  on  the  fact  that  Pittsfield  was  a  county  town  and 
on  new  territory.     Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  IV.,  451. 

1  Cf.  Inhabitants  of  Pearson  Town,  to  Boston  Committee  of  Correspondence, 
July  8,  1773:  "We  are  not  a  Town.  To  be  at  present  in  that  capacity  would 
expose  us  to  a  Taxation  which  would  be  a  Burden  too  Grievous  for  us  in  our 
Infant  State  to  bear."     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  705. 

Wenham  sent  a  representative  only  once  in  the  years  from  1747  to  1767. 
Allen,  History  of  Wenham,  54.  Manchester,  May  10,  1736,  voted  not  to  send  a 
representative,  "  not  being  able  to  support  the  Charges.  .  .  ."  Manchester 
Records,  II.,  23.  Cf.  Ibid.,  II.,  83,  171 ;  Adams,  Address  at  Acton,  14;  Gibbs, 
History  of  Blandford,  72;   Braintree  Town  Records,  333. 

*  Acts  of  1774,  chap.  3,  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  389. 


27]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  2J 

and  full  rights  of  representation.1  Not  only  such  acts  during 
the  period  of  the  revolution,  but  also  various  facts  in  the  sub- 
sequent history  of  the  commonwealth,  emphasized  the  im- 
portance of  the  towns  in  the  political  system  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  made  still  more  distinct  the  significance  of  a 
contest  involving  the  maintenance  or  the  restriction  of  their 
rights.  Such  significance  is  undiminished  by  the  fact  that 
this  question  did  not  become  an  issue  at  any  threatening 
crisis,  and  that  its  solution  was  not  attended  by  any  theatrical 
incidents. 

The  location  of  the  assembled  General  Court  furnished  a 


further  subject  of  controversy  which  aided  in  increasing  the 
tension.  Little  was  said  either  in  the  charter  of  1691  or  in 
the  explanatory  charter  of  1726  regarding  the  place  at  which 
the  legislature  should  meet ;  yet  established  custom,  provin- 
cial statute,  and  general  recognition  had  designated  Boston 
as  the  legislative  seat.  The  question  at  issue  illustrates  how 
not  infrequently  a  political  character  is  given  to  an  event  or 
policy  which  in  its  origin  was  confessedly  not  of  that  nature. 
The  vigorous  political  contest,  in  the  years  preceding  the 
Revolution,  over  the  removal  of  the  assembly  to  Cambridge, 
was  not  an  isolated  phenomenon.  The  question,  in  one 
form  or  another,  had  been  present  for  half  a  century ;  and 
during  that  period  the  attitude  assumed  on  it  had  varied 
significantly.  Recurring  to  1721 ,2  the  prevalence  of  small  pox 
in  Boston  then  forced  the  legislature,  for  its  session  of  August 
23,  to  meet  at  the  George  Tavern  on  Boston  Neck,  a  place 
which  the  representatives  voted  "  not  accomodable."3  They 
resolved  to  remove  to  Cambridge,  to  meet  there  when  the 
governor  should  see  fit;  with  this  step  the  council  concurred, 
fout  the  governor  considered  such  procedure  an  infringement 

1  Acts  of  1 775-1 776,  chap.  3.     Ibid.,  V.,  419,  420. 

2  Cf.  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  II.,  227,  241,  245. 
z  Acts  and  Resolves  0/  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  II.,  234. 


28  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [28 

of  the  charter.  Nevertheless,  the  General  Court  met  subse- 
quently at  Harvard  College ;  but  the  approach  of  the  epi- 
demic forced  them  to  adjourn,  in  the  following  month,  to 
the  Swan  Tavern,  Cambridge.  Likewise  for  hygienic 
reasons  we  find  the  General  Court  meeting  at  Harvard  Col- 
lege, at  the  East  Meeting  House,  Roxbury,  and  at  the 
George  Tavern,  during  the  year  1730.1  So  in  1737,  for  the 
sake  of  convenience,  the  legislature  met  at  Salisbury;2  and 
in  1 75  1  and  1752,  owing  to  epidemics,  at-  Harvard  College 
again.3 

Of  another  type  was  the  adjournment  of  the  General 
Court  to  Salem  in  1728.4  On  September  13  of  that  year 
Governor  Burnet,  at  Boston,  wrote  to  the  Lords  of  Trade  r 
"  I  came  hither  on  the  19th  July  and  have  ever  since  the 
24th  been  contending  with  a  stiff  assembly."  So  obstinate 
was  the  conduct  of  the  house  in  refusing  to  obey  the  king's 
instructions  with  reference  to  the  governor's  salary,  that  that 
officer  adjourned  the  assembly  to  meet  at  Salem,  October 
3 1.5  Such  sessions  as  those  of  1728  and  1729,  held  in  any 
place  outside  of  Boston,  the  representatives  resolved  were 
illegal.  They  had  in  1721  passed  similar  resolves,  and  at 
that  time  not  only  had  the  council  concurred  but  the  gov- 
ernor as  well  had  admitted  the  correctness*  of  their  position.6 
The  lower  house  held  the  same  ground  in  1770,  when  it  op- 
posed the  course  of  the  governor  in  adjourning  the  assembly 
to  Cambridge.     There  was  then  no  reason  for  or  against  re- 

*  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  II.,  573,  574.      Cf  Ibid.,  II., 
545,  for  meeting  at  Cambridge,  Aug.  21,  1729. 

''  Ibid.,  II.,  923.     Cf.  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  IV.,  556. 
3  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  III.,  605,  662. 

*  Cf.  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  II.,  316,  317,  325,  328.      Cf  Ibid. 
II.,  335.      Cf.  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  IV .,  513,  524,  526. 

5  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.  Bay,  II.,  523,  where  the  reasons 
for  the  step  are  given. 

fi  Jbid.,  I.,  363.      Cf.  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  II.,  317,  318. 


29]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  2$ 

moval  on  which  all  parties  were  agreed ;  the  purpose  in- 
volved ,in  the  act  was  political,  and  so  was  the  problem  which 
resulted  from  it.  Efforts  at  its  solution  now  for  three  years 
intensified  and  embittered  the  colonial  spirit. 

The  violence  suffered  by  royal  officials  in  Massachusetts 
in  the  time  of  the  Stamp  Act  excitement,  the  participation 
of  the  royal  legislature  in  the  movement  toward  the  Stamp 
Act  Congress,  and  such  subsequent  acts  of  the  house  of 
representatives  as  its  refusal  to  rescind  its  circular  letter  to 
the  other  colonies,  gave  Massachusetts  an  unsavory  reputa- 
tion with  the  home  government.  The  sequence  of  events 
was  so  logical  and  so  speedy  that  the  introduction  of  an  ef- 
fective military  force  need  not  have  surprised  the  colonists. 
Amid  their  crude  effort,  in  September,  1768,  to  create  such 
a  provincial  congress  as  was  later  a  power,  on  the  very  day 
when  the  delegates  of  nearly  one  hundred  towns  dispersed 
after  the  conference  at  Faneuil  Hall,  the  fourteenth  and 
twenty-ninth  regiments  arrived  in  Boston  harbor.  Thence- 
forth Boston  contained  a  camp,  and  in  consequence  the 
hostile  feeling  toward  the  ministry  was  greatly  increased. 
"Vindex."  voicing  the  common  man,  demanded  that  the 
proper  magistrates  should  "execute  the  good  and  wholesome 
laws  of  the  land  with  resolution  and  an  intrepid  firmness, 
aided  by  the  posse  comitates,  the  body  of  the  county, 
which  is  their  only  natural  and  legal  strength,"  and  insisted 
that  "  to  be  called  to  account  by  a  common  soldier,  or  any 
soldier,  is  a  badge  of  slavery  which  none  but  a  slave  will 
wear."  * 

More  formal  protest  by  the  General  Court  was  impossible 
during  the  period  of  prorogation.  The  situation,  however, 
remained  practically  unchanged  until  the  new  house  of  rep- 
resentatives met,  at  the  end  of  May,  1769.     Immediately  it 

1  Boston  Gazette,  December  5,  1768,  Wells,  Life  of  Samuel  Adams,  I.,  231, 
232. 


30  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [30 

adopted  a  message  to  Governor  Bernard  in  which  it  protested 
"that  an  armament  by  sea  and  land,  investing  this  metro- 
polis, and  a  military  guard,  with  cannon  pointed  at  the  very 
door  of  the  state  house,  where  this  Assembly  is  held,  is  in- 
consistent with  that  dignity,  as  well  as  that  freedom,  with 
which  we  have  a  right  to  deliberate,  consult  and  determine."1 
They  passed  further  resolves  declaring  such  treatment  a 
"  breach  of  privilege,"  and  that  it  was  only  out  of  regard  for 
the  provision  of  the  charter  requiring  the  council,  speaker,, 
and  clerk  to  be  chosen  on  this  last  Wednesday  in  May  that 
they  would  consent  to  transact  any  business  whatever. 
They  expressly  stated  that  they  bore  their  part  in  the  elec- 
tion of  the  day  "  from  necessity,  and  in  strict  conformity  to 
the  royal  charter  ;2  having  before  claimed  their  constitutional 
freedom,  and  now  protesting  that  their  thus  proceeding, 
while  the  above  mentioned  forces  are  suffered  to  remain  in 
the  metropolis  where  this  Court  is  convened,  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  precedent  in  any  time  hereafter,  or  construed  as 
a  voluntary  receding  of  this  House  from  their  constitutional 
claim."3  The  governor's  disavowal  of  authority  over  the 
military  force  was  followed  by  an  interchange  of  views  and 
an  obstruction  of  business,  until,  on  June  15,  Bernard  came 
to  the  conclusion,  as  he  informed  the  house,  "from  your  re- 
solutions, and  a  fortnight's  experience,  that  you  do  not  think 
that  this  is,  at  this  time,  a  proper  town  for  the  General 
Court  to  sit  in,"4  and  he  accordingly  endeavored  to  apply 
such  remedy  as  lay  within  his  power.  Because  he  claimed 
to  be  unable  to  withdraw  the  royal  forces  from  the  capital 
he  removed  the  General  Court  to  Cambridge.  The  next 
address   of    the    house  was    mainly  an  insistence  upon  the 

^Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  166,  167. 

5  Precedents  for  argument  in   such   a   contest  were  few.     Cf  Parliamentary 
History,  IV.,  317;    Smith,  History  of  A'eta  Jersey,  405-409. 

3  Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  168.  *  Ibid.,  172. 


3  i]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  3  r 

principles  already  advanced.  In  it  they  claimed  the  en- 
dorsement of  their  constituents,  "  for  an  entire  fortnight, 
spent  in  silence,  or  a  much  longer  time,  cannot  be  displeas- 
ing to  them,  when  business  could  not  be  entered  upon,  but 
at  the  expense  of  their  rights  and  liberties,  and  the  privilege 
of  this  House."  *  Other  questions  now  took  precedence,  a 
petition  for  the  removal  of  Bernard  was  adopted,  and  with 
his  departure,  Lieutenant  Governor  Thomas  Hutchinson 
took  the  laboring  oar  for  the  administration. 

After  delays  by  prorogation  the  General  Court  finally  met 
again,  March  15,  1770.  Instructions  received  by  Lieutenant 
Governor  Hutchinson  were  by  him  interpreted  as  requiring 
a  session  at  Cambridge.  The  house  at  once  declared  that 
such  a  step,  if  based  merely  on  royal  instructions,  could  be 
nothing  less  than  "  an  infraction  of  our  essential  rights,  as 
men  and  citizens,  as  well  as  those  derived  to  us  by  the 
British  constitution,  and  the  charter  of  this  colony."2  They 
took  a  step  equally  characteristic  of  their  views  when  they 
continued  their  remonstrance  by  the  appeal  to  the  governor 
to  exert  the  authority  derived  by  him  from  his  Majesty's 
royal  commission,  agreeable  to  the  charter  of  the  colony,, 
and  vested  in  him  alone,  "in  adjourning  this  great  and 
General  Assembly,  to  its  ancient  place,  the  Court  House  in 
Boston."3  The  council  took  similar  ground,  though  its 
statement  of  the  case  was  more  moderate  in  tone  and  less 
inclusive.  In  his  replies  to  the  two  houses  the  governor  dis- 
claimed all  private  motives,  and  emphasized  his  position  as 
"  servant  of  the  King,  to  be  governed  by  what  appears  to 
me  to  be  his  Majesty's  pleasure  in  those  things,  which  other- 
wise I  might  have  a  right  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  according  to  my 
discretion."4 

B.esides  the  constitutionality  and   force  of    royal  instruc- 

1  Speeches  of the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  173.  2  Ibid.,  195. 

z  Ibid,  196.  *Ibid.,  198. 


32  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [32 

tions  which  were  inherent  in  the  nature  of  provincial 
government,  and  besides  the  elements  of  the  problem 
involving  convenience  and  expediency,  the  colonists  ad- 
duced the  provisions  of  the  provincial  statute,  10  William 
III.,  chap.  4,  and  insisted  upon  the  illegality  of  hold- 
ing a  General  Court  outside  of  Boston.  In  this  statute 
the  processes  for  convening  a  General  Court  had  been  stated 
and  the  form  of  writ  of  election  prescribed.  In  this  it  was 
provided  that  the  General  Court  should  meet  in  Boston,1  a 
provision  held  by  one  party  to  be  specific  and  mandatory 
and  by  the  other  party  to  be  wholly  pro  forma.  Relying 
chiefly  upon  this,  the  representatives  declared  that  they 
"proceed  to  business,  under  this  grievance,  only  from  abso- 
lute necessity ;"  and  they  ordered  that  their  protest  be 
recorded  in  order  that  their  act  might  not  thereafter  be 
taken  as  a  precedent.2 

When  the  new  house  of  representatives  assembled,  May 
31,  1770,  they  at  once  addressed  the  governor  on  the  all- 
important  question.  The  adjournment  to  Salem,  by  Gov- 
ernor Burnet,  in  1729,  was  cited  and  attention  drawn  to  the 
fact  that  the  representatives  had  never  yielded  their  point. 
Mention  was  also  made  of  the  enforced  adjournments  and 
especially  of  that  of   1721,  after  which  "the  three  branches 

1  Cf.  Acts  of  i692-'93,  ch.  36;  Acts  of  i694-'95,  ch.  28;  Acts  of  1698,  ch.  4; 
Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  I.,  80,  202,  315. 

2  March  24,  1770;    Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  202. 

Joseph  I Iawley,  Cambridge,  April  3,  1 770,  to  Mrs.  Hawley:  "You  will  Per- 
ceive by  the  Papers  that  the  Council  and  house  are  very  uneasy  at  the  Court's 
being  held  at  Cambridge.  It  was  Sometime  before  they  would  Consent  to  enter 
on  business,  but  on  Saturday  the  24th  of  March  after  Protesting  against  the 
Abuse  and  grievance  of  the  Court's  being  Moved  from  the  Seat  of  Governmt 
they  applied  themselves  closely  to  business,  of  which  there  is  Much  to  do,  but 
We  daily  find  ourselves  retarded  in  business  by  reason  of  our  distance  from  the 
Province  records  and  for  want  of  Convenient  places  for  Comtees  to  Sit  in  &c 
&c.  .  .  .  The  Lt  Govr  treats  the  house  with  great  Complaisance,  as  I  expected  he 
would."     Hawley  Papers,  I.,  Bancroft  Collection. 


33]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  33 

of  the  Legislature  passed  a  resolve,  to  make  valid  their  pro- 
ceedings ;  which  they  would  not  have  done,  if  they  had 
thought  the  adjournment  from  the  Town  House,  in  Boston, 
however  necessary,  had  been  consistent  with  the  before 
mentioned  legal  establishment."  1  The  absence  of  the  lieu- 
tenant governor  prevented  immediate  reply.  Under  these 
circumstances  the  house  issued  a  further  defense  of  its  action 
on  the  ground  of  necessity,  and  reaffirmed  its  adherence  to 
the  charter  by  proceeding  at  once  to  the  election  of  coun- 
cillors. On  the  following  day  Hutchinson  addressed  the 
General  Court,  and  also  sent  a  message  to  the  house.  In 
this  he  insisted  not  only  upon  the  grant  by  the  charter  to 
the  governor  of  power  to  adjourn  and  prorogue  the  General 
Court,  but  also  upon  the  unlimited  nature  of  that  power,  re- 
gardless of  custom  or  of  the  form  of  the  writ  as  established 
by  provincial  law.  He  alluded  to  the  adjournment  to  Salis- 
bury in  1737,  by  royal  writ,  when  no  necessity  existed;  and 
he  made  reference  as  well  to  the  disputes  upon  this  matter 
in  the  days  of  Shute  and  Burnet,  in  the  time  of  the  latter  of 
whom,  he  concludes,  "the  dispute,  as  I  apprehend,  was 
settled ;  and  I  cannot  help  being  of  opinion,  that  you  are 
moving  a  matter  which  has  been  more  than  forty  years  at 
rest;    .  .  ."2 

The  interchange  of  protest  and  reason  continued,  and 
early  in  June  the  house  accepted  a  long  report  on  the  mat- 
ter which  was  made  effective  by  the  adoption,  on  June  7,  of 
a  further  message  to  the  lieutenant  governor.  In  this  they 
considered  it  "  by  no  means  expedient  to  proceed  to  busi- 
ness, while  the  General  Assembly"  was  "thus  constrained 
to  hold  their  session  out  of  the  town  of  Boston."3     In  view 

1  May  3:,  1770;   Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  207. 

2  Ibid.,  210. 

3  Cf.  Eliot  to  Hollis,  June  28,  1770.     Collections  of  Mass.  Hist.  Soc,  4  series, 

IV.,  452. 


34  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [34 

of  the  very  important  business  awaiting  their  attention,  they 
prayed  the  governor  to  remove  the  General  Court  "to  its 
ancient,  usual,  and  only  convenient  seat,  the  Town  House, 
in  Boston."  *  The  intrinsic  significance  of  this  action  was 
increased  by  the  fact  that  in  it  the  house  was  practically  a 
unit,  the  vote  for  the  adoption  of  the  message  being  96  to  6.2 
Hutchinson  immediately  repeated  from  his  point  of  view  the 
arguments  in  the  case  and  assured  the  house  that  if  they 
should  finally  refuse  to  do  business  in  Cambridge,  which  he 
hoped  they  would  not,  all  the  ill  consequences  would  be  at- 
tributed to  them,  and  not  to  himself.^  The  house  then 
promptly  adopted  still  more  elaborate  justifications  of  its 
course;  the  council  co-operated  in  this;  and  thereupon  fol- 
lowed for  months  an  incessant  reiteration  of  arguments  and 
claims  varying  widely  in  justification  and  in  convincing 
power.4 

After  two  more  years  of  such  contention  an  end  was  finally 
reached.  In  the  customary  message  of  the  house  on  the  sub- 
ject, in  May,  1772,  was  an  expression  not  easily  interpreted 
with  confidence  by  the  governor.  His  request  for  an  explana- 
tion provoked  a  display  of  ill  temper,  and  an  episode  that  be- 
came somewhat  significant.  To  his  request  the  house  replied 
that  all  the  expressions  of  the  house  were  "  sufficiently  clear 
and  plain,"  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  altogether  needless  to 

1  Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  215. 

a  Ibid.  The  minority  is  given  in  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III., 
292,  as  Timuthy  Ruggles,  Daniel  Oliver,  John  Worthington,  Benjamin  Day, 
Elisha  Porter,  and  John  Ingersoll. 

3  Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  217. 

*  By  a  resolution  of  June  13,  1770,  the  house  ordered  to  be  published  a  pamph- 
let of  83  pages  called  :  "Proceedings  of  the  Council,  and  the  House  of  Representatives 
....  relative  to  ....  holding  ....  The  General  Assembly  ....  in  Cambridge; 
.  .  ."  Also  by  order  of  the  house  there  was  printed  a  pamphlet  of  66  pages  entitled  : 
"A  Continuation  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Representatives rela- 
tive to  ...  .  holding  The  General  Assembly  at  Harvard  College,  in  Cambridge 
.  .  .  ."     Both  were  printed  by  Edes  and  Gill  in  1770. 


35]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  35 

make  any  explanation  of  them  ;  to  which  was  added  the  hope 
that  his  excellency  would  not  delay  to  give  a  full  answer  to 
the  message.1  To  this  he  replied,  "  I  must  govern  myself  by 
the  measure,  not  of  your  understanding,  but  my  own.  .  .  As 
reserved  as  you  have  been  in  your  message  to  me,  I  will  be 
unreserved  and  open  with  you."  2  Much  more  pungently  he 
continues:  "Whilst  you  dispute  the  authority  by  which  I 
removed  the  Court  from  Boston,  I  do  not  intend  to  carry  it 
thither  again;  .  .  ." 3  "This  sudden  step,"  as  Hutchinson 
himself  later  wrote,  "  gave  the  governor  much  uneasiness." 
After  some  ten  days,  in  order  to  prevent  dissatisfaction 
among  the  people  of  the  province,  he  laid  his  instructions 
and  the  message  of  the  house  before  the  council,  and  re- 
quired its  opinion  and  advice,  whether  "  he  might  remove  the 
assembly  to  Boston,  consistently  with  his  instructions?  They 
were  unanimously  of  opinion  that  he  might;  and  he  caused 
the  assembly  to  be  adjourned  to  Boston  accordingly."4 
Thus  was  ended  the  contest  and  was  afforded,  in  the  words 
of  the  chief  participant,  an  opportunity  "  to  hope  for  a  ses- 
sion without  controversy."5  A  concession  prompted  by 
expediency  could  not,  however,  assure  such  result.  On  the 
contrary,  the  circumstances  and  the  nature  both  of  the  con- 

1  June  3,  1772;   Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Massachusetts,  323. 

2  June  3,  1772;   Ibid.,  323. 

June  8,  1772,  Joseph  Hawley,  Boston,  wrote  to  Mrs.  Mercy  Havvley:  "I  am 
this  minute  Setting  off  for  Cambridge.  I  think  our  Governour  is  bereft.  You'l 
See  by  the  Papers  how  he  acts."  Hawley  Papers,  I.,  Bancroft  Collection. 
May  9,  1772,  Hutchinson  wrote  to  [Israel  Williams]:  "Govt  has  but  few  sup- 
porters and  they  will  not  attend  when  they  are  most  wanted."  Letters  of  T. 
Hutchinson  to  Israel  Williams,  53,  Bancroft  Collection.      Cf  Ibid.,  57. 

June  22,  1772,  Hutchinson  wrote  to  T.  Pownal :  "If  you  was  now  in  America 
you  would  be  sick  of  it  in  a  week  and  leave  it.  Ten  years  ago  they  had  some  notion 
of  government.  They  have  none  now."  Mass.  Archives,  27,  346;  reprinted  in 
Hosmer,  life  of  Hutchinson,  231. 

3  Speeches  of  the  Governors  ofAIass.,  323. 

4  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  356,  357.  5  Ibid.,  357. 


/ 


36  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [36 

test  and  of  its  apparent  ending  were  such  as  to  impress  upon 
the  colonists  the  imminent  danger  of  being  governed  wholly 
by  executive  instructions  from  a  distant  power.1  The  possi- 
bility of  being  brought  ultimately  to  such  administrative 
subordination  had  been  present  from  the  beginning  of  the 
provincial  period  ;  it  was  now  by  no  means  removed  ;  and  it 
remained  before  the  colonists  as  a  certain  incident  of  defeat 
both  during  the  two  years  that  were  still  to  precede  the  final 
contest,  and  during  the  progress  of  that  contest  as  well.2 

In  the  time  of  Hutchinson  also  appeared  a  further  question, 
which  was  not  new,  but  which  was  of  fundamental  import- 
ance.3 For  decades  the  legislative  control  exercised  over 
the  governor  by  limiting  or  withholding  grants  of  his  salary 
had  been  repugnant  to  royalty.  The  requisition  that  the 
salary  of  the  king's  governor  should  be  granted  for  an  in- 
determinate or  a  relatively  long  period  had  been  repeatedly 
and  successfully  resisted ;  and  original  practice  had  been 
followed    by    voting  annually    the    salary    of    the    governor 


1  Cf.  T.  Hutchinson  to  John  H.Hutchinson,  February  14,  1772.  Writing  of 
Pitt's  speech  on  American  affairs,  he  says :  "  Since  that  time  the  members  of  the 
Assembly  grumble  and  mutter,  and  ask  by  what  authority  Acts  of  Parliament  are 
mixed  with  our  Provincial  laws;  and  the  House  of  Representatives . have  re- 
peatedly resolved  that  it  is  unconstitutional  for  the  people  to  be  governed  by  laws 
made  by  any  power  in  which  they  are  not  represented."  Mass.  Archives,  27, 
296;  Almon,  Remembrancer,  1;  77,  lie,  ill;  reprinted  in  Hosmer,  Life  of 
Thomas  Hutchinson,  229.  Cf.  Abington  committee  to  Boston  committee,  July 
29,  1773;  referring  to  Hutchinson,  Oliver,  Hallowell,  and  others:  "If  they  are 
above  Law  they  ought  not  to  be  allow'd  to  live  among  any  humane  Society." 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  I.,  115,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Since  the  text  was  prepared  the  following,  by  a  well  known  student  of  the 
period,  has  appeared:  "Since  the  House  flatly  refused  to  proceed  to  business  in 
any  other  place  than  the  town-house  in  Boston,  Hutchinson  at  last  yielded.  For 
four  years  the  struggle  had  been  maintained,  much  of  the  time  almost  solely  by 
Samuel  Adams.  The  insistence  upon  the  point  produced  a  profound  effect  upon 
public  opinion,  though  in  history  its  importance  has  not  been  appreciated," 
Hosmer,  Life  of  Hutchinson,  227. 

3  Cf.  e.g.  :   Palfrey.  History  of  New  England,  IV.,  456,  498-503,  507,  512,  539  _ 


37]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MA  SSA  CHUSE  TTS  37 

with  the  other  items  of  the  provincial  civil  list.  It  was 
natural  that  the  home  government  should  aim  to  re- 
move its  appointees  from  dependence  upon  the  represen- 
tatives of  democracy.  This,  apparently,  could  be  accom- 
plished with  ease  by  arranging  that  the  governor  should 
draw  his  salary,  not  from  the  provincial  treasury,  but  from 
funds  controlled  by  the  home  government.  The  effort  to 
bring  about  this  change  set  in  a  clear  light  the  anomalous 
position  of  the  governor;  it  made  plain  the  divergence  of 
those  interests  which  the  governor  was  supposed,  respect- 
ively, to  serve  and  to  represent ;  and  it  added  to  the  broader 
controversy  a  further  difficulty. 

Such  difficulty  finally  appeared  when,  late  in  1770,  a  bill 
was  passed  by  the  General  Court,  appropriating  .£325  to 
Hutchinson  for  his  support  as  lieutenant  governor.  To  this 
Hutchinson  did  not  give  his  assent;  and  his  action  in  the 
following  April1  upon  two  similar  appropriations  was  so 
long  delayed  that  the  house  took  the  offensive.  On  the  day 
after  acknowledgment  was  made  of  the  announcement  "  in 
form  "  of  Hutchinson's  receipt  of  his  commission,  the  house 
addressed  the  governor  with  reference  to  his  action  upon  the 
bill  already  mentioned  and  his  failure  to  act  upon  two  later 
bills.  The  members  stated  to  him  plainly  that  they  were 
apprehensive  that  he  was  "under  some  restraint;  "  and  that 
they  could  not  account  for  it  upon  any  other  principle  than 
his  having  provision  for  his  "support  in  some  new  and  un- 
precedented manner."2     They  asked  for  some  assurance  to 

1  Apiil  1,  1771,  Hutchinson  wrote  to  Israel  Williams:  "Two  Adams',  Phillips, 
Hancock  and  two  or  three  others  who  with  the  least  reason  have  been  the  most 
injurious  are  all  of  any  sort  of  consideration  who  stand  out.  I  cannot  expect  any 
great  mark  of  regard  from  the  House  whilst  the  Boston  Members  are  aided  by  a 
gentleman  from  your  County  who  has  so  much  influence."  Letters  of  T.  Hutch- 
inson to  Israel  Williams,  49-51,  Bancroft  Collection. 

Cf.  Ibid,  to  Ibid.,  Dec.  7,  1766;  as  to  Joseph  Hawley:  "I  have  not  the  least 
doubt  of  his  integrity  .  .  .  ."     Ibid.,  II. 

2  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  298. 


270,35; 


38  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [38 

allay  their  apprehensions,  and  for  a  definite  statement 
whether  provision  was  made  for  his  support,  "as  Governor 
of  this  province,  independent  of  his  Majesty's  Commons  in 
it."1  In  response,  he  alluded  to  the  use  of  this  new  title  for 
the  house  of  representatives,  and  informed  them  "that  the 
King,  Lords,  and  Commons,  our  supreme  Legislature,"  had 
"determined  it  to  be  expedient  to  enable  his  Majesty  to 
make  a  certain  and  adequate  provision  for  the  support  of  the 
civil  government  in  the  colonies,"  as  his  Majesty  should 
judge  necessary.2  He  explained  his  refusal  to  accept  the 
appropriation  as  a  step  merely  consistent  with  his  duty  to 
the  king,  and  offered  the  further  empty  explanation  :  "Be- 
fore the  close  of  the  present  session,  I  shall  assent  to,  or  re- 
ject the  bills  which  shall  have  passed  the  two  Houses,  as  it 
shall  appear  to  me  the  same  duty  requires  of  me."3 

At  the  time  of  its  protest  of  June  19,  1771,  against  hold- 
ing the  General  Court  at  Cambridge,  the  house  stated  that 
according  to  the  charter,  the  governor  and  other  civil  offi- 
cers were  to  be  supported  "by  the  free  gift  of  the  General 
Assembly;"  and  that  the  governor,  by  the  charter,  was  to 
reside  within  the  province,  and  be  supported  "  by  the  free 
grants  of  the  people."4  This  position  was  maintained  one 
year  later  when  the  consideration  of  a  grant  to  the  governor 
was  again  proposed.  The  rejection  of  the  appropriation 
bill  of  1 77 1  put  the  house  "wholly  at  a  loss  to  account  for 
that  measure,"  unless  provision  was  made  for  the  support  of 
his  excellency,  "  otherwise  than  by  grants  and  acts  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  province."  They  insisted  both 
that  the  governor  should  receive  financial  support  and  that 
it  should  come  through  appropriation  by  the  General  Court. 
They  therefore  asked  for  exact  information  concerning  the 
sources  whence  the  governor  was  receiving  his  salary.     The 

1  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  298.  2  Ibid.,  299. 

8  Ibid.,  298.  *  Ibid.,  303. 


39]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  39 

reply  came  at  the  time  Hutchinson  adjourned  the  General 
Court  to  Boston.  In  his  message  of  June  13,  1772,  he  an- 
nounced definitely  that  the  king  had  provided  for  his  sup- 
port, and  stated  most  suggestively  that,  "  as  this  is  judged 
to  be  an  adequate  support,  I  must  conclude  it  cannot  be 
his  Majesty's  pleasure,  that,  without  his  special  permission, 
which  has  not  yet  been  signified  to  me,  I  should  accept  of 
any  grant  from  the  province,  in  consideration  of  the  ordinary 
government  services  done,  or  to  be  done,  by  me."1 

Thus  understanding  the  situation,  the  house  reviewed  the 
constitutional  question2  and  maintained  that  by  the  charter 
the  General  Assembly  had  full  power  to  provide  support  for 
the  governor,  to  determine  what  should  be  adequate  to  his 
support,  and  to  raise  the  necessary  funds.  The  innovations 
were  condemned,  and  a  series  of  resolutions  was  adopted 
which  Hutchinson  soon  declared  to  be  "  not  well  founded," 
but  which,  on  the  contrary,  were  such  as  tended  "  to  alter 
the  constitutional  dependence  of  this  colony  upon  the 
Crown,  and  upon  the  Supreme  Legislative  authority  of  Great 
Britain."3  In  this  address  of  July  14,  1772,  he  also  ex- 
plained the  situation,  both  historically  and  constitutionally, 
and  concluded  by  informing  the  house  that  they  could  not 
expect  him  even  to  petition,  in  pursuance  of  their  resolves, 
that  he  might  be  allowed  to  receive  a  portion  of  his  support 
from  them.4  The  interpretation  commonly  placed  upon  the 
charter  by  the  colonists  was  emphatically  denied,  and  one 
point  of  vantage,  long  desired  by  the  home  government,  was 
at  last  secured.  The  attainment  of  it,  however,  involved 
a  denial  of  claims  long  and  honestly  maintained  by  the 
colonists,  and  by  increasing  its  burden  weakened  the  party 
which,  for  the  moment,  was  politically  successful.  Success, 
nevertheless,  gained  under  such   circumstances,  brought  to 

1  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  325.  2  Ibid.,  325-329. 

3  Ibid.,  331.  *  Ibid.,  336. 


4o  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [40 

the  defeated  equal  advantage,  in  that  it  helped  to  define  a 
problem  whose  solution  could  be  effected  only  by  extreme 
and  dangerous  measures  or  by  compromise.  The  character 
and  the  conviction  of  both  parties  prevented  the  latter; 
toward  the  former  an  appreciable  impetus  was  given  by  the 
controversy  over  the  governor's  salary. 

Closely  associated  with  the  effort  of  the  crown  thus  to  con- 
trol the  executive,  and  to  render  him  independent  of  the  pro- 
vincial legislature,  was  the  purpose  to  bring  into  similar  sub- 
ordination the  provincial  judiciary.1  The  house  of  representa- 
tives, learning  through  the  secretary  of  the  province  that  the 
governor  had  not  acted  upon  the  customary  grants  recently 
made  to  the  justices  of  the  superior  court,  sent  to  him  an 
address,  February  3,  1773,  and  asked  that  he  "would  be 
pleased  to  make  known  to  them  the  difficulty  (if  any  there 
be)  in  your  Excellency's  mind,  which  prevents  your  assent- 
ing to  said  grants."  Upon  the  general  situation  they  con- 
tinue: "The  people  without  doors  are  universally  alarmed2 
with  the  report  that  salaries  are  fixed  to  the  offices  of  the 
said  Justices,  by  order  of  the  Crown  ;  and  an  unusual  delay 
to  confirm  the  grants  now  made,  is  judged  by  this  House  to 
be  a  sufficient  apology  for  this  inquiry."3  On  the  following 
day  Hutchinson  informed  them  that  an  order  for  such  an 
allowance  of  salaries  had  been  made,  although  he  was  unable 
to  state  whether  the  warrants  for  such  payments  had  been 

1  Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams,  II.,  316,  317,  328-332. 

2  Reply  to  Boston  committee  from  Chatham,  December  17,  1772:  "We  are 
greatly  alarmed  at  the  Governors  Being  made  Independent  of  the  grants  of  this 
province  and  at  the  Prevelant  Report  of  the  I.eftenant  Governors  Judges  of  the 
Supearor  Court  of  Judicatur  as  also  the  King's  aturney  and  Silhsator  Genaral  being 
soon  on  that  footing  which  if  it  should  take  affect  (what  will  come  next  we  know 
not  but  may  easily  Gess)  we  cannot  but  think  it  hath  a  direct  tendency  soon  to 
compleet  our  Slavery  .  .  .  ."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  I.,  269,  Bancroft  Collec- 
tion. 

3  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  365. 


4 1  ]  GO  VERNMEN T  IN  MA SSA  CH USE TTS  4 r 

issued.1  This  message,  as  its  author  later  said,  was  "  re- 
sented with  much  warmth"  by  the  house.2  Their  reply,  as 
reported  by  a  committee  of  seven,  including  Samuel  Adams 
and  John  Hancock,  and  presented  on  February  12,  1773, 
gave  strong  expression  to  the  prevailing  sentiment.  The 
optimistic  reference  to  the  independence  of  the  judiciary, 
made  by  King  George  III.,  in  the  speech  on  his  accession  to 
the  throne,3  was  quoted,  and  allusion  made  to  the  probable 
misinformation  upon  which  it  was  based.  They  expressed 
their  conviction  that  it  had  been  the  design  of  the  administra- 
tion to  overthrow  the  constitution,  and  to  introduce  arbitrary 
rule  into  the  province,  and  they  insisted  that  when  they  con- 
sidered the  many  attempts  that  had  been  made  to  render 
void  those  clauses  in  the  charter  upon  which  the  freedom 
of  the  constitution  depended,  they  "should  be  lost  to  all 
public  feeling,  should  "  they  "  not  manifest  a  just  resent- 
ment."4 It  was  their  opinion,  furthermore,  that  no  judge 
who  had  a  "  due  regard  to  justice,  or  even  to  his  own  char- 
acter, would  choose  to  be  placed  under  such  an  undue  bias 
as  they  must  be  under,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  by  ac- 
cepting of,  and  becoming  dependent  for  their  salaries  upon 
the  Crown."5  They  awaited  an  early  assurance  from  the 
governor  that  the  justices  would  refuse  such  support,  granted 
thus  in  a  manner  not  only  obnoxious  to  the  views  of  men  of 
the  province  but  even  "repugnant  to  the  charter,  and  utterly 
inconsistent  with  the  safety  of  the  rights,  liberties,  and  prop- 
erties of  the  people."6 

1  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  365.     Cf.  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts, 
III.,  386. 

2  Ibid.,  III.,  387. 

3  Cf  Parliamentary  History,  XV.,   1007.     Annual  Register,  1 761,  5th  edit., 
part  I.,  243. 

*  Speeches  of  the  Governors  of  Mass.,  366.     Cf.  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts, III.,  387. 

6  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  366.  6  Ibid.,  366,  367. 


42  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [42 

Such  assurance  not  coming  at  once,  the  house,  on  Febru- 
ary 16,  again  addressed  the  governor,  and  asked  whether  he 
could  satisfy  it  that  the  justices  of  the  superior  court  had 
refused  or  would  refuse  to  accept  support  from  the  crown ; 
an  affirmative  answer  to  which  would  "tend  to  promote  his 
Majesty's  service,  and  the  peace  and  happiness  of  the  peo- 
ple." '  Immediately  Hutchinson  responded:  "I  most  cer- 
tainly am  not  able,  to  inform  you,  that  the  Justices  of  the 
Superior  Court  have  refused,  or  will  refuse,  to  accept  of 
their  support  from  the  Crown."2  With  the  attitude  of  the 
governor  thus  by  implication  made  clear,  the  house  put 
itself  on  record  by  the  adoption,  on  March  3,  1773,  of  a 
series  of  resolutions  bearing  upon  the  matter  at  issue.  Re- 
ference was  made  in  these  to  the  acts  of  parliament  of  the 
preceding  decade  in  accordance  with  which  the  king, 
"against  the  consent  of  the  people,"  had  appropriated  a  part 
of  the  provincial  revenue  to  the  support  of  a  royal  governor, 
and  now  was  about  to  make  a  similar  appropriation  for  the 
judiciary.  The  unrestricted  authority  of  parliament  to  legis- 
late for  the  colonies  was  denied.  The  unlimited  power  of 
the  General  Court  over  the  assessment,  collection,  and  dis- 
posal of  provincial  revenue  was  asserted.  They  added  that 
the  dependence  of  the  judges  on  the  crown  was  unconstitu- 
tional, and  destructive  of  that  civil  security  which  should 
pertain  to  a  due  execution  of  law ;  that  it  tended  to  oppres- 
sion and   "to  the  subversion  of  justice  and  equity;"3  and, 

1  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  367.  2  Ibid. 

3  Cf.  action  of  Braintree,  March,  1773:  resolved,  "That  all  civil  officers  are 
or  ought  to  be  Servants  to  the  people  &  dependent  on  them  for  their  official 
Support;  and  every  instance  to  the  contrary  from  [the]  Governor  down- 
wards tends  to  crush  &  destroy  civil  liberty."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  I.,  194, 
Bancroft  Collection. 

Cf.  action  of  Bristol,  March  9,  1773  :  "  the  placing  of  Officers  and  Judges  over 
us  without  our  Consent  and  Affixing  them  their  Stipends  from  home  we  hold  is  a 
Manifest  Breach  of  the  Law  (Saving  His  Excellency  the  Governor  and  the 
Councell)  and  that  them  we  have  an  undoubted  Right  to  Stipulate  with  for  their 
hire."     Ibid.,  I.,  207. 


43]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  43 

furthermore,  that  any  superior  court  judge  holding  commis- 
sion during  the  pleasure  of  the  king,  who  should  accept  the 
support  of  the  crown  independent  of  the  grants  of  the  Gen- 
eral Court,  would  discover  to  the  world,  that  he  had  not  a 
"  due  sense  of  the  importance  of  an  impartial  administration 
of  justice,"  that  he  was  an  "  enemy  to  the  constitution,"  and 
had  it  "  in  his  heart  to  promote  the  establishment  of  an  arbi- 
trary government  in  the  province."1 

Some  weeks  after  the  adoption  of  these  resolutions  the 
two  houses,  in  an  official  letter  to  Lord  Dartmouth,2  invoked 
his  interposition  for  the  recall  of  the  warrants  for  the  judges' 
salaries,  if  already  issued,  and  urged  strongly  the  protection 
of  their  charter  rights,  rights  among  which,  they  insist,  was 
"  the  supporting  of  the  officers  of  the  Crown,  by  grants  from 
the  Assembly;  and  in  an  especial  manner,  the  supporting  of 
the  Judges  in  the  same  way,  on  whose  judgment  the  province 
is  dependent,  in  the  most  important  cases  of  life,  liberty  and 
property." 3  Such  an  appeal,  however,  could  avail  little. 
The  policy  of  the  home  government  was  fixed,  and  the  nat- 
ural course  for  the  royal  judges,  as  for  the  governor,  was  to 
accept  the  grant  from  the  king  and  decline  the  provincial 
allowance.  Such  a  step  would  have  the  advantage  of  pre- 
senting to  both  parties  a  definite  issue,  leading  necessarily  to 
some  immediate  and  decisive  result.  This  it  did  present,  and 
the  development  of  the  problem  was  such  that  the  colonists 
themselves,  as  in  other  cases,  were  obliged  to  make  the  first 
effort  at  its  solution.  Although  postponed  for  some  months 
after  the  letter  was   sent  in   June  to   Dartmouth,   the  final 

1  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  397,  398.  As  to  the  last  resolve :  "  This  resolve, 
like  many  others,  was  ambiguous  and  delusive."  Hutchinson,  History  of  Mass., 
III.,  390. 

2  Dated  June  29,  1773.  References  are  made  to  this,  and  a  general  view  of  the 
contest  is  given,  in  the  letter  of  Thomas  Cushing,  Boston,  August  22,  1773,  to  the 
Earl  of  Dartmouth.     Stevens,  Facsimiles,  no.  2028. 

3  Speeches  of  the  Governors,  399. 


44  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [44 

action  necessarily  was  extreme,  for  it  was  recognized  that 
upon  this  matter  "  the  increase  of  troubles  rendered  all  ex- 
pedients insignificant  and  vain."  ' 

The  step  now  taken  by  the  colonists  was,  in  brief,  an  effort 
to  subordinate  the  judiciary  to  the  legislature,  and  to  assert 
even  to  the  utmost  the  control  of  the  provincial  assembly 
over  the  judges.  The  latter  were  asked  to  give  assurance 
that  they  would  not  accept  financial  support  from  the  crown. 
In  response  the  reasonableness,  and  even  the  necessity,  of 
such  support  was  suggested,2  and  a  palliation  by  some 
attempted  of  the  prospective  conquest  of  provincial  judges 
by  royal  gold.3  No  cavilling  availed  ;  nor  would  the  rep- 
resentatives entertain  uncertain  professions.  Their  determi- 
nation to  make  the  judges  financially  dependent  on  the 
colonial  assembly  resulted  in  drawing  from  each  associate 
judge  on  the  superior  court  bench  a  plainly  stated  assurance 
that  no  part  of  any  salary  granted  by  the  king  would  be 
accepted. 

In  a  measure,  the  colonists  were  successful.  From  Chief 
Justice  Peter  Oliver,  however,  could  not  be  extorted  the 
guarantee  given  by  his  associates.  He  stood  alone  in  main- 
taining his  position.  His  fortitude  and  his  own  confident 
justification  were  answered  by  a  blunt  remonstrance  from  the 
house  to  the  governor  and  council,  in  which  Oliver's  per- 
versity and  corruption,  his  hostility  to  the  established  forms 
of  government,  and  his  undue  bias,  were  cited  in  support  of 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  390. 

'l  In  this  connection  it  is  significant  to  notice  that  on  February  19,  1779,  Judges 
Win.  Cushing,  Jedediah  Foster,  David  Sewall,  and  James  Sullivan,  notified  the 
house  of  representatives  that  they  would  be  obliged  to  resign  their  commissions, 
as  with  the  allowances  granted  they  were  unable  to  perform  their  duties  "  with 
any  Degree  of  Reputation  or  Justice  to  their  Families,  .  .  .  ."     Journal,  House 

rRepresenta  tives. 
3  Cf.  Abington  committee  to   Boston  committee  of  correspondence,  July  29, 
1773:  "  Well  might  the  inspired  Penman  pronounce  the  love  of  Money  the  Root 
of  all  Fvil."     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  I.,  115,  Bancroft  Collection. 


45]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  45 

a  demand  for  his  prompt  removal.1  This  the  governor,  in- 
terpreting his  own  powers,  did  not  lay  before  the  council, 
but  answered  himself,  and  to  the  effect  that  a  compliance 
with  its  request  would  constitute  a  breach  of  his  official  trust. 
Thereupon  the  house  appealed  to  the  council  for  guidance, 
while  to  the  governor  was  addressed  a  further  petition,  read 
by  the  speaker  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  house.  Their 
request  that  in  the  matters  under  consideration  the  governor 
should  act  only  upon  the  advice  of  the  council  was  promptly 
denied. 

The  house  then  had  recourse  to  a  more  determined  step.2 
It  was  immediately  voted  to  impeach  the  chief  justice^  and 
a  committee  was  ordered  to  draw  articles  of  impeachment.4 

1  Cf  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  444. 

2  T.  Hutchinson,  Boston,  April  7,  1773  [to  Israel  Williams]  :  "  I  have  been  in 
the  Court  a  long  time,  but  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  known  before  a  House 
of  Representatives  capable  of  voting  unanimously  according  to  the  direction  of 
their  leader,  and  yet  this  seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  late  House,  for  I 
could  not  find  any  of  them  who  could  give  any  account  of  their  messages  after 
they  had  voted  them."  Letters  of  1\  Hutchinson  to  Israel  Williams,  61,  Ban- 
croft Collection. 

Cf  Ibid,  to  Ibid.,  Boston,  July  20,  1773:  "I  pitied  the  poor  members,  more 
than  one  half  of  them  being  forced  to  vote  in  verba  magistri  either  directly 
against  their  judgment,  or  without  understanding  what  they  voted."     Ibid.,  65. 

s  Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams,  I.,  137,  et  sea. 

4  In  these  the  formal  statement  is  that  Oliver  "  did  on  or  about  the  tenth  Day 
of  January  1774  at  Boston  in  the  County  of  Suffolk,  take  and  receive  and  resolve 
for  the  future  to  take  and  receive  from  his  Majesty's  Ministers  and  Servants,  a 
Grant  or  Salary  for  his  Services  as  Chief  Justice  of  the  said  Superiour  Court 
against  his  own  knowledge  of  the  said  Charter  and  of  the  way  and  manner  pre- 
scribed therein  for  the  support  of  his  Majesty's  Government  in  the  Province,  and 
contrary  to  uninterrupted  and  approved  usage  and  Custom  since  the  erecting  and 
Constituting  of  the  said  Court."  They  reserve  significantly  the  "  Liberty  of  ex- 
hibiting at  any  time  hereafter  to  the  Governor  and  Council  or  to  the  Council 
only,  any  Complaints  .  .  .  ."  The  articles  are  given  with  Oliver's  letter  to  the 
house  of  representatives,  Middleborough,  February  3,  1774.  Revolutionary 
Corresp.,  III.,  21-31,  Bancroft  Collection.  The  articles  of  impeachment  were 
printed  in  the  Essex  Gazette,  no.  293,  March  1-8,  1774,  and  in  Mass.  Gazette, 
(Draper),  March  3. 


46  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [46 

The  governor  was  asked  to  be  in  the  chair,  that  the  articles 
might  be  presented  formally  to  governor  and  council.  The 
governor,  however,  would  admit  neither  the  propriety  of  the 
action  nor  his  own  competency  in  the  case.  Again  the 
house  was  checked  in  its  plan.  Nevertheless,  the  governor's 
presence  in  the  chair  was  presumed,  and  under  that  supposi- 
tion the  articles  of  impeachment  were  read.  It  was  insisted 
that  there  must  be  within  the  province  some  power  qualified 
to  determine  upon  the  misdemeanors  of  public  officers  and 
to  effect  their  removal.  According  to  the  house  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  were  qualified.  In  the  opinion  of  the  gov- 
ernor, he  was  obliged  to  act  with  the  council  only  in  two 
specified  cases,  neither  of  which  was  the  one  in  question. 
Several  possibilities,  as  that  the  council  might  proceed  alone 
to  act  as  the  judicial  body,  confronted  the  governor,  and  to 
throw  the  whole  matter  again  into  the  suspense  of  inaction 
he  resolved  to  prorogue  the  General  Court.  This  act 
was  not  accompanied,  as  usual,  by  the  assembling  of  both 
houses  before  the  governor  in  the  council  chamber  to  hear 
his  closing  speech,  but,  instead,  the  province  secretary  was 
sent  to  each  house  and  there  made  the  announcement. 
Now,  however,  as  again  some  few  months  later,  he  was  kept 
waiting  outside  the  closed  door  of  the  house  of  representa- 
tives until  that  body,  warned  only  when  the  message  was 
being  read  to  the  council,  had  time  in  which  to  provide 
somewhat  for  the  future  and  to  declare  that  they  had  done 
all  that,  "in  the  capacity  of  representatives  of  the  people  in 
this  court,  can  be  done,  for  the  removal  of  Peter  Oliver,  esq., 
the  chief  justice,  from  his  seat  in  the  superior  court ;  and 
that  it  must  be  presumed  that  the  governor's  refusing  to 
take  any  measures  therein,  is  because  he  also  receives  his 
support  from  the  crown."  1     Some  days  thereafter  the  Gen- 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  453,  454. 


47  J  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  47 

eral  Court  was  dissolved  by  executive  proclamation.1  Then, 
as  the  governor  himself  later  wrote,  "All  legislative,  as  well 
as  executive  power  was  gone,  and  the  danger  of  revolt  was 
daily  increasing."2 

In  no  department  was  this  imminent  anarchy  more  striking 
than  in  the  judicial,  in  which  now  no  settlement  had  been 
reached,  and  in  which  the  postponement  of  such  could  serve 
little  purpose  other  than  the  increase  of  tension  and  the 
removal  of  any  possibility  of  amicable  accommodation. 
Oliver  remained  unmoved  in  his  convenient  and  helpful  con- 
viction that  stipends  from  the  crown  might  be  legally 
accepted.  The  maintenance  of  the  opposite  view  by  the 
colonists  was  enforced  by  their  repeated  and  outspoken 
refusal  to  be  sworn  as  jurors  in  any  court  in  which  the  pro- 
scribed chief  justice  might  be  upon  the  bench.  Thus  the 
situation  was  one  of  suppressed  hostility,  although  such  it 
could  not  long  remain.  The  contest  with  reference  to  the 
origin  and  control  of  the  salaries  of  the  highest  provincial 
court  rapidly  disappeared,  or  was  excluded  from  attention  by 
the  rise  of  other  questions,  in  essence  as  old,  but  apparently 
grasped  as  the  newer  questions,  as  those  of  the  present 
rather  than  of  the  past,  those  in  connection  with  which  the 
actual  crisis  was  to  arise. 

The  parliamentary  legislation  with  reference  to  Massachu- 
setts made  this  question,  like  others,  a  mere  incident  of  the 
more  fundamental  and  far-reaching  issues.     To  be  sure,  the 

1  Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams,  II.,  335. 

2  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  455.  Abington  Committee  to 
Boston  Committee  of  Correspondence;  July  29,  1773:  "A  fine  Goverment 
this! ! !  Is  Mr.  Hutchinson  Governor!  .  .  .  P.  S.  We  apprehend  Mr.  Hutchin- 
son in  his  great  Zeal  for  the  abridgment  of  English  Liberty  need  take  good  care 
least  he  hall  the  reins  of  Goverment  too  Strait,  perhaps  they  may  Snap  assunder, 
&  his  Secret  confidential  plan  tumble  down  aboute  his  Ears."  Revolutionary 
Corresp.,  I.,  117,  Bancroft  Collection. 


V 


48  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [ 48 

treatment  early  accorded  Peter  Oliver1  was  pursued  vigor- 
ously in  the  exciting  summer  months,  but  at  that  time  the 
salary  question  was  obscured  by  the  greater  question  of  the 
establishment  of  courts  reorganized  on  lines  recently  dictated 
by  parliament.  Upon  that  question,  as  will  be  seen,  the 
conflict  resulted  in  the  summary  and,  as  was  to  be  proven, 
the  permanent  closing  of  royal  courts  in  the  province. 

The  acts  of  parliament,  to  one  of  which  allusion  has  been 
made,  which  were  passed  with  especial  reference  to  Massa- 
chusetts in  the  spring  of  1774,  enforce  the  view  indicated  in 
the  preceding  paragraphs,  and  present,  as  well,  an  additional 
phase  of  the  situation.  The  affairs  of  Massachusetts  had  for 
a  decade  claimed  the  unusual  attention  of  the  ministry,  and 
had  impressed  those  conversant  with  the  situation  that  the 
interests  of  governors  and  governed  had  ceased  even  pre- 
sumably or  approximately  to  coincide.  The  recognition  of 
this  fact  must  inevitably  lead  to  greater  irritation,  and  to  the 
assertion  of  such  claims  and  theories  as  would  necessitate  a 
climax  of  unqualified  opposition.  The  result  of  such  friction 
and  the  occasion  for  such  opposition  appeared  in  the  statutes 
just  mentioned.  Such  response  to  the  ill-tempered  conduct 
of  Massachusetts  served  chiefly  to  promote  dissatisfaction, 
yto  increase  the  spirit  of  defiance,  and  to  stimulate  resistance. 
The  parliamentary  attempt  to  destroy  the  elective  jury,  to 
change  the  nature  of  the  council,  and  to  modify  the  compe- 
tence of  town  meetings,  involved  the  denial  of  all  theories  of 
provincial  politics  and  government  previously  advanced  by 
the  colonists.  Extreme  adherence  to  those  theories,  if  con- 
sistently maintained,  would  now  result  in  an  appeal  to  more 
than   argument  or  law.     The  firmness  of  each  party  in  the 

lCf.T.  Hutchinson,  Boston,  April  12,  1774,10  Israel  Williams:  "I  leave  the 
Chief  Justice  to  do  what  he  thinks  fit.  I  know  what  I  could  have  done  when  I 
was  in  his  station."  letters  of  T.  Iltttchinson  to  Israel  Willia»is,  85,  Bancroft 
Collection. 


49]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  aq 

support  of  its  professions  made  necessary  such  an  appeal.1 
The  result,  as  will  appear,  was  definite,  and  to  the  cause  of 
parliament  and  the  king  it  was  fatal.  Such,  however,  was  no 
more  than  the  natural  result  of  the  attempt  to  subordinate 
provincial  governments  and  administration  to  the  will  of 
parliament,  an  attempt  made,  as  it  was,  by  a  government 
which  possessed  neither  wisdom  nor  resources  sufficient  to 
assure  the  success  of  its  efforts,  and  made  especially  at  an 
inauspicious  time,  at  the  close  of  a  decade  which  had  been 
filled  with  irritating  events. 

Great  as  had  been  the  contention  of  the  colonists  for 
"chartered"  rights,  all  such  basis  for  their  claims  was  now 
withdrawn.  For  them  now  it  was  no  longer  a  contest  over 
the  interpretation  of  their  charter.  It  became  rather  a  con- 
test over  the  continuance  of  the  charter  and  over  the  nature 
of  the  rights  therein  assured  to  the  king's  subjects.  The  in- 
definiteness  and  incompleteness  of  the  provincial  charter, 
either  as  an  instrument  of  government  or  as  a  guarantee  of 
rights,  had  either  directly  occasioned  or  plainly  made  possi- 
ble conflicts  of  opinion  and  of  authority,  the  continuance  of 
which  threatened  in  no  uncertain  way  the  destruction  of  the 
system  which  it  embodied.  For  this  event,  indeed,  these 
conflicts  made  such  direct  preparation  that  the  issue,  unless 
modified  by  compromise  or  averted  by  concession,  was  early 
made  plain  and  inevitable.  Neither  compromise  nor  conces- 
sion was  resorted  to  by  the  home  government,  but  full  effect 

JThe  preamble  of  a  report  accepted  by  the  town  of  Gorham,  January  7,  1773, 
read :  "  We  only  add  that  our  old  Captain  is  still  living.  .  .  .  Many  of  our 
Families  have  been  inured  to  the  Danger  and  fatigue  of  flying  to  Garrison.  .  .  . 
many  of  our  Watch  boxes  are  still  in  being;  some  of  our  Women  have  been  used 
to  handle  the  Cartridge,  and  load  the  Musquet,  and  the  Swords  which  we  whet 
and  brightned  for  our  Enemies  are  not  yet  grown  rusty."  Revolutionary 
Corresp.,  I.,  377,  Bancroft  Collection.  Cf.  Letter  of  town  of  Lincoln,  December 
27,  1773.     Ibid.,  I.,  513. 

Cf.  Diary  of  Nath'l  Ames,  Sept.  9,  1774:  "appearance  of  Civil  War."  Ded- 
ham  Hist.  Register,  III.,  72. 


50  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [50 

was  given  to  the  possibilities  inherent  in  the  provincial  ele- 
ments of  the  Massachusetts  system. 

Political  circumstances  made  such  conflicts  more  frequent 
and  more  natural  in  Massachusetts  than  elsewhere.  In  a 
purely  royal  province  such  assertion  of  popular  rights  would 
have  been  illogical  and  impossible.  In  a  typical  corporate 
colony  such  limitation  of  local  political  activity  and  such 
invasion  of  local  political  independence  would  have  been 
neither  tolerated  by  one  party  nor  attempted  by  the  other. 
The  union,  however,  of  elements  of  both  systems,  and  the 
effort  to  harmonize  in  co-ordinate  lines  of  action  parties 
whose  interests  were  directly  opposed,  could  result  ulti- 
mately in  little  less  than  absolute  failure.  This,  in  essence, 
was  the  outcome  of  the  development  in  Massachusetts, 
although  it  was  upon  other  lines  that  the  political  contest 
was  chiefly  fought  out,  lines  on  which  the  contest  could  be 
made  to  appear  that  of  America  rather  than  that  merely 
of  Massachusetts ;  from  which  expansion  the  broader  con- 
test was  accorded  a  relatively  excessive  significance  both  by 
contemporaneous  nationalism  and  by  subsequent  patriotism. 

The  legislation  of  1774,  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
presented  tangibly  to  Massachusetts  not  only  the  question 
of  the  inviolability  of  royal  charters,  but  also  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  the  relation  between  parliament  and  the  colonial  and 
provincial  dependencies.1  With  this  became  involved,  then, 
the  efforts,  on  the  one  hand,  to  correlate  parliamentary  taxa- 
tion with  colonial  representation,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
maintain  the  authority,  throughout  both  the  kingdom  and  its 
outlying  possessions,  of  the  administrative  boards  established 

'Citing  the  statutes  4  Geo.  III.,  ch.  15,  34;  5  Geo.  III.,  ch.  25;  6  Geo.  III., 
ch.  52;  7  Geo.  III.,  ch.  41,  46;  8  Geo.  III.,  ch.  22;  the  three  statutes  relative 
to  Massachusetts,  the  Canada  Bill,  and  the  Dock  Yard  Act,  Joseph  Warren 
wrote  to  Joseph  Hawley :  "  Upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  above  Acts  I  am 
fully  of  opinion  that  they  more  than  justify  the  nth  Resolve  of  the  continental 
Congress  concerning  them."     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 


\ 


5  i ]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  c  \ 

by  parliament.1  This  led  naturally  to  a  discussion  of  the 
entire  relations  between  the  home  government  and  its  Amer- 
ican possessions.2  Upon  the  first  of  these  matters  much, 
incidental  to  general  history,  has  been  written,  and  commonly 
in  a  uniform  strain.  The  history  of  the  time  has  been  well 
threshed.  Not,  however,  until  recently  has  it  become  possi- 
ble to  treat  the  constitutional  question  adequately  and  in  a 
way  consistent  with  modern  scientific  thought.  It  should  be 
unnecessary,  and  it  is  beyond  the  present  purpose,  to  enter 
again  the  discussion  of  the  political  and  constitutional  ques- 
tions then  involved.  Suffice  it  to  insist  upon  the  obvious 
and  general  features  shown  in  the  development  of  those  rela- 
tions. In  these  features  will  be  emphasized  a  lack  of  con- 
cord in  interests  which  will  do  much  to  make  the  Revolution 
appear  not  as  a  distinct  political  episode  occasioned  by 
disruptive  influences  spontaneously  created  and  suddenly 
given  full  play,  but  rather  as  the  normal  ending  of  years  of 
faithful  adherence  to  divergent  policies,  of  the  firm  main- 
tenance of  incompatible  political  theories,  and  of  bitter  dis- 
pute over  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  political 
society  rests  and  by  which  it  is  controlled. 

In  a  large  measure,  the  history  of  the  colony  and   of  the 
province   was    the    preparation    for    the   Revolution.3     The 

1  Cf.  District  of  Montague,  to  Boston  committee  of  correspondence,  April  6, 
1773:  "  How  ministerial  Instructions  have  So  much  to  do  with  our  Constitution 
as  that  one  Branch  of  our  Legislature  should  become  a  meer  ministerial  Engine 
we  find  not :  Since  the  Governor,  Council  &  House  of  Representatives  are  by 
Charter  constituted  a  compleat  Legislative  Body  with  inherent  Powers  to  make 
all  Laws  for  ordering,  regulating  &  taxing  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Province." 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  645. 

2  E.  g.,  as  to  control  of  manufactures  and  trade,  see  action  of  Mendon,  March 
I,  1773.     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  640,  641. 

Cf.  Letters  of  Horace  Walpole,  IV.,  479.     Wynne,  British  Empire  in  America, 
II.,  380.     Pownall,  Administration  of  the  Colonies,  102. 
Cf  Annual  Register,  1765,  3d  Edit.,  part  1,  p.  24. 
8  The  contests  over  the  vetoing  of  the  choice  of  speaker  and  of  councillors,  the 


jj2  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [52 

demagoguism  of  such  as  Samuel  Adams  imparted  to  that 
epoch  a  theatrical  spontaneity  which  to  some  may  have  ex- 
cluded any  thought  of  the  period  preceding  the  outburst. 
Yet  in  those  decades  had  been  operating  influences  both 
silent  and  strong  which,  when  attaining  expression,  were  to 
make  it  undeniable  that  the  position  of  the  colonists  was 
anomalous  in  many  ways,  with  reference  both  to  theory  and 
to  fact.  For  two  centuries,  or  for  a  longer  period,  the 
thought  of  Englishmen  had  been  directed  to  those  new  lines 
of  social,  ecclesiastical,  and,  later,  of  political  organization, 
the  recognition  of  which  was  ultimately  to  give  political  life 
of  a  new  type  to  the  English  subject.  Such  reorganization 
of  political  society  was  first  effected  in  the  New  England 
colonies.  There  were  implanted  those  ideas  of  religion,  of 
politics,  and  of  economics  which  were  to  be  thrown  into  such 
significant  prominence  in  the  early  years  of  George  III. 
To  him  and  his  ministers  the  growth  of  those  ideas  presented 
a  new  and  an  ominous  problem  in  colonial  administration. 
It  was  so  presented  that,  unless  the  administration  should 
prove  untrue  to  its  trust  or  the  colonists  should  inconsist- 
ently renounce  their  professions,  a  permanent  decision  could 
be  attained  only  after  the  employment  of  sufficient  force  to 
revolutionize  the  provincial  government.  This,  in  reality, 
was  the  conclusion  reached  after  parliament  essayed  funda- 
mentally to  alter  the  constitutional  arrangements  based  on 
the  charter  of  1691.  The  steps  thereafter  are  clearly  defined. 
The  enforcement  of  the  statutory  reforms  precipitated  the 
struggle  in  regard  to  the  new  mandamus  council  and  the 
newly  prescribed  royal  courts.     It   introduced  the  sudden 

trouble  with  reference  to  the  letters  of  Hutchinson  and  to  the  delivery  of  the 
Castle,  the  proposal  to  tax  the  property  of  royal  customs  commissioners,  the  dis- 
putes even  over  the  use  of  the  regnal  dates  and  over  the  style  of  enactment,  and 
several  other  incidents,  might  be  adduced  to  enforce  still  more  strongly  the  views 
suggested. 


e  3 ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  53 

accession  to  large  power  of  various  extra-constitutional 
bodies.  It  was  promptly  followed  by  the  organization  of  a 
revolutionary  body  representing  the  entire  province,  and  by 
the  institution  of  effective  provisional  government. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   END    OF   PROVINCIAL   GOVERNMENT 

§  I.   The  Mandamus  Council 

In  the  American  provinces  the  council,  whether  as  a  com- 
ponent of  the  legislature  or  as  an  administrative  and  judicial 
body,  was  an  instrument  of  royalty.  It  was  such  in  Massa- 
chusetts until  the  election  of  Bowdoin  to  the  upper  house;1 
at  that  time  the  opponents  of  the  Hutchinson  faction  were 
given  a  leader  who  was  able  permanently  to  transfer  the 
i\  support  of  the  council  from  the  king's  governor  to  the 
people's  house  of  representatives.2  For  the  final  years  of 
its  existence  the  royal  council  became  "popular"  in  its 
opinions  and  its  policy.  With  house  and  council  united 
against  the  royal  executive,  a  radical  change  was  necessarily 
effected,  and  thenceforward  the  result  of  the  conflict  was  no 
longer  doubtful.  To  have  prevented  such  a  combination 
and  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  any  results  thereof,  as  well  as 
to  assure  the  ascendency  of  the  home  government,  was  the 
natural  aim  of  king  and  parliaments  The  existence  of  such 
a  purpose  was  finally  and  distinctly  avowed  in  the  provisions 

1  Cf.  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  156.  Cf.  Parliamentary 
History,  XVI.,  q86. 

a  Cf.  Ibid.,  XVI.,  986. 

3  Cf.  Thomas  Hutchinson,  Boston,  January  26,  1769,  to  Israel  Williams:  "It 
is  generally  believed  in  England  that  we  shall  never  have  another  election  of 
Councillors.  It  is  certainly  a  part  of  Ld  H's  plan  that  we  should  not.  ...  I 
had  no  thought  of  this  step.  I  rather  expected  a  Quo  Warranto  or  a  Bill 
brought  into  Parlt  to  disannull  the  Charter  .  .  .  ."  Letters  of  T.  Hutchinson  to 
Israel  Williams,  1 7,  Bancroft  Collection. 

54  T54 


55]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MA  SSA  CHUSE  TTS  r  c 

of  the  statute,  14  Geo.  III.,  ch.  45. z  By  this  it  was  enacted 
that  after  August  1  the  council  elected  in  May,  in  accordance 
with  the  charter  of  1691,  should  cease  to  exist,  and  its 
powers  be  abrogated.  The  influential  upper  house  was  now 
to  be  succeeded  by  a  body  of  similar  powers  appointed  by 
the  crown.  With  this  act  regulating  the  government  of 
Massachusetts  was  sent  the  list  of  royal  appointees  to  the 
new  council.  On  the  receipt  of  such  by  the  governor  his 
course  was  clearly  defined,  and,  as  he  wrote  shortly  thereafter, 
"  No  time  was  lost  in  forming  the  new  Council."2  In  the 
attempted  formation  of  that,  however,  came  one  of  the  sig- 
nificant crises  of  1774  in  Massachusetts.3  It  was  a  crisis, 
furthermore,  for  which  the  government  should  have  been 
prepared,  for  the  future  was  not  obscure.  Even  in  the  first 
week  in  June,  when  he  was  transmitting  the  list  of  the  new 
council  to  Governor  Gage,  Lord  Dartmouth  had  written : 
"There  is  little  room  to  hope  that  every  one  of  the  persons 
whom  his  Majesty  has  appointed  to  be  of  his  council,  will  be 
induced  to  accept  that  honor,  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
every  art  will  be  practiced  to  intimidate  and  prejudice." 

As  a  warning,  the  secretary's  letter  was  timely ;  as  a 
prophecy,  it  was  accurate.4  The  discussion  of  the  earlier 
weeks  was  speedily  followed  by  intimidation.  In  the  discus- 
sion each  side  stood  on  ground  in  its  own  view  perfectly 
defensible ;   the  colonists,  on  the  one  hand,  abided  by  their 

1  Cf.  Speech  of  Lord  North,  March  28,  1774:  "  I  propose,  in  this  Bill,  to  take 
the  executive  power  from  the  hands  of  the  democratic  part  of  the  government; 
.  .  .  ."  Parliamentary  History,  XVII.,  1 193.  Cf.  Charters  and  Genera/ Laws 
of  Mass.,  785-796. 

2  To  Dartmouth,  August  27,  1774.     4  American  Archives,  I.,  741. 

3  Cf.  Joseph  Hawley's  "Broken  Hints:"  "It  will  necessarily  be  a  question, 
whether  the  new  government  of  this  province  shall  be  suffered  to  take  place  at 
all, — or  whether  it  shall  be  immediately  withstood  and  resisted?"  Niles,  Prin- 
ciples and  Acts,  324;    Works  of  John  Adams,  IX.,  641-643. 

4  Cf.  "  Fabius,"  in  the  Mass.  Spy,  no.  186,  August  25,  1774. 


5 6  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [56 

charter;1  on  the  other  hand,  the  government  party  rested 
with  equal  confidence  on  the  competency  of  parliament  and 
the  prerogatives  of  the  crown.2  Thus,  citing  analogies,  it  was 
claimed  that  King  William  had,  without  legal  process  or  act 
of  parliament,  "  resumed"  the  governments  of  Maryland  and 
Pennsylvania  because  the  conditions  of  the  grant  had  been 
broken,  "  though  not  in  so  great  a  degree  as  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  have  done."3  George  I.,  it  was  urged, 
had  "resumed"  the  government  of  South  Carolina,  and  an 
abundance  of  past  examples  afforded  sufficient  basis  for  the 
supposition  that  the  course  of  king  and  parliament  was 
proper  and  constitutional.  It  involved,  however,  an  altera- 
tion of  the  charter  of  1691,  and  such  alteration,  if  not  sanc- 
tioned by  each  of  the  original  parties  to  what  the  colonists 
chose  to  consider  a  contractual  instrument,  was  held  by  their 
reasoning  to  be  quite  beyond  a  pretence  of  constitutionality.4 

'(^Joseph  Hawley's  "  Broken  Hints:"  "It  is  easy  to  demonstrate  that  the 
regulation  act  will  soon  annihilate  every  thing  of  value  in  the  charter,  introduce 
perfect  despotism,  and  render  the  house  of  representatives  a  mere  form  and 
ministerial  engine."     Niles,  Principles  and  Acts,  324. 

2  Cf.  Parliamentary  History,  XVIII.,  290. 

s  [Sir  J.  Dalrymple.]  The  Address  of  the  People  of  Great  Britain  to  the  In- 
habitants of  America,  p.  49. 

*  Cf  Oration  by  Joseph  Warren,  at  Boston,  March  5,  1772:  "After  various 
struggles,  which,  during  the  tyrannic  reigns  of  the  house  of  Stuart,  were  con- 
stantly kept  up  between  right  and  wrong,  between  liberty  and  slavery,  the  con- 
nection between  Great  Britain  and  this  colony  was  settled  in  the  reign  of  king 
William  and  queen  Mary,  by  a  compact,  the  conditions  of  which  were  expressed 
in  a  charter;   .  .  ."     Niles,  Principles  and  Acts,  5. 

Cf  Oration  by  Joseph  Warren,  at  Boston,  March  6,  1775:  "And  it  is  evident 
that  the  property  in  this  country  has  been  acquired  by  our  own  labor;  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  to  produce  some  compact  in  which  we  have 
explicitly  given  up  to  them  a  right  to  dispose  of  our  persons  or  property."     Ibid.,  19. 

Cf  Oration  by  James  Lovell,  at  Boston,  April  2,  1771 :  "  The  king  of  England 
was  said  to  be  the  royal  landlord  of  this  territory;  with  him  they  entered  into 
mutual,  sacred  compact,  by  which  the  price  of  tenure  and  the  rules  of  manage- 
ment, were  fairly  stated."     Ibid.,  3. 

Cf  Oration  by  Peter  Thacher,  at   Watertown,   March   5,  1776:  "When  the 


57]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  r  7 

The  document  was  not,  in  their  view,  a  grant  alterable  or  re- 
vocable at  the  will  of  the  grantor,  but  rather  an  affirmation 
and  guarantee  of  certain  rights  and  relations  which  could  not 
be  legally  set  aside  by  either  party  acting  independently.1 
Divergent  lines  of  thought  and  action  necessarily  resulted 
from  such  views.  Under  the  circumstances,  it  was  not  by 
argument  that  a  conclusion  could  be  reached.  The  possibil- 
ity of  harmony  was  daily  decreasing,  and  when,  on  August 
8,  1774,  Governor  Gage  assembled  the  new  council  and  ap- 
pointed a  further  meeting  for  August  16,  the  people  saw  the 
threatened  destruction  of  their  charter,  and  knew  how  to 
act.  Owing  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  royal  government 
their  acts  were  effective,  even  if  so  radical  as  to  be  reprehen- 
sible. The  treatment  accorded  the  newly  appointed  coun- 
cillors was,  to  be  sure,  hardly  praiseworthy ;  less  so,  how- 
ever, was  the  course  of  the  government  in  allowing  the 
possibility  of  such  treatment.  The  action  of  the  people  at 
first  took  a  thoroughly  disorderly  turn.     After  the  success 

ambition  of  princes  induces  them  to  break  over  the  sacred  barriers  of  social  com- 
pact, and  to  violate  those  rights,  which  it  is  their  duty  to  defend,  they  will  leave 
no  methods  unessayed  to  bring  the  People  to  acquiesce  in  their  unjustifiable  en- 
croachments."    Ibid.,  23. 

Cf.  Message  of  house  of  representatives  to  lieut.  gov.,  August  1,  1770: 
"  It  is  true,  we  consider  the  charter  as  such  a  compact,  and  agree  that  both 
parties  are  held."     Speeches  of  the  Governors,  246. 

Cf.  Protest  of  house  of  representatives,  June  19,  1771.     Ibid.,  302. 

1  Lexington,  December  31,  1772,  passes  a  vote  referring  to  the  charter  as  "a 
sacred  Compact  between  them  &  the  Crown  .  .  .  ."  Revolutionary  Corresp., 
I.,  493,  Bancroft  Collection. 

Cf.  Report  accepted  by  the  conference  at  Boston,  August  27,  1774:  "whereas 
no  power  on  earth  hath  a  right  without  the  consent  of  this  Province,  to  alter  the 
minutest  tittle  of  its  Charter  .  .  .  ."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  61-63,  Ban- 
croft Collection.  Cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  1021.  Attleborough,  January  18,  1773,  to  Boston 
committee :  "  our  Subjection  to  the  Crown  of  Great  Brittain  must  be  considered 
as  an  act  of  our  own  Election,  how  far  that  Subjection  was  made  and  in  what 
manner,  the  Brittish  Government  Can  Possably  Reach  over  the  Athlantic  to  have 
any  Influence  at  all  upon  us,  is  known  only  by  the  Stipulation  Between  us  and 
the  King  of  Great  Brittain  Expressed  in  our  Charter;   .  .  .  ."     Ibid.,  I.,  136. 


ij8  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [58 

of  efforts  of  that  type  they  were  willing  to  take  merely  a  de- 
fensive position  free  from  violence. 

As  in  the  overthrow  of  the  royal  courts,  the  Massachu- 
setts men  went  quickly  and  vigorously  beyond  the  limits  of 
propriety,  so  in  their  disposal  of  this  equally  obnoxious  por- 
tion of  the  royal  government,  their  actions  were  early  such 
as  to  secure  success,  if  not  commendation.1  In  brief,  when 
the  list  of  nominees  was  made  known,  a  prompt  effort  was 
made  to  induce  the  colonists  in  question  to  decline  the  oaths 
of  office,  or,  if  they  had  been  taken,  to  resign  their  mandamus 
appointments.  A  council  named  by  the  king  was  naturally 
not  a  body  of  men  disposed  to  follow  the  dictates  of  the 
colonial  mob  ;   from  which  divergence  of  interests  and  affilia- 

1  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1012,  September  5,  1774,  states,  that  on  August  27,  1000 
men  of  Worcester  county  called  on  John  Murray  and  demanded  his  resignation 
from  the  Council  and  his  publication  of  it  by  September  10.  Murray  was  one  of 
the  13  who  took  the  oath  on  August  16;   he  retired  to  Boston  on  signs  of  trouble. 

Ibid.,  contains  an  account  of  Thomas  Oliver's  resigning  when  his  house  at 
Cambridge  was,  on  September  2,  surrounded  by  4000  men. 

Ibid.,  speaks  of "  the  new  Divan  (consisting  of  the  wretched  Fugitives  with 
whom  the  just  indignation  of  their  respective  Townsmen  by  a  well  deserved  Ex- 
pulsion, have  filled  this  capital)  usurped  the  Seats  round  the  Council  Board  in 
Boston." 

Gov.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  Salem,  August  27,  1774,  mentions  the  episode 
on  the  road  near  Worcester  when  the  crowd  used  force  on  Mr.  Ruggles  "  with 
intent  to  stop  him,  but  he  made  his  way  through  them."  "  Mr.  Ruggles,  of  the 
new  Council,  is  afraid  to  take  his  seat  as  Judge  of  the  Inferiour  Court,  which  sets 
at  Worcester,  on  the  7th  of  next  month;  .  .  .  ."  Gage  refers  to  the  possibility 
of  being  obliged  to  send  troops  thither.  Parliamentary  History,  XVIII., 
90;  also  in  4  American  Archives,  I.,  741-743.  In  his  letter  September  2,  1774, 
to  Lord  Dartmouth,  Gage  mentioned  the  enforced  retreat  to  Boston  of  Ruggles, 
Edson,  Murray,  Leonard,  Loring,  and  Pepperell,  the  forced  resignation  of  Paine, 
and  the  ill  treatment  of  Willard  in  Connecticut.  Parliamentary  History,  XVIIL, 
94;    also  in  4  American  Arehives,  I.,  767.     He  mentions  7  resignations. 

In  his  diary  for  1774  Peter  Oliver  wrote:  "Nothing  but  mobs  and  riots  all 
this  summer.  Wednesday  the  14th  of  Sepr  I  was  mobbed."  Diary  and  Letters 
of  Thos.  Hutchinson,  I.,  151. 

Cf.  Frothingham,  History  of  Charleslorvn,  302-305.  Cf.  Letter  of  Thomas 
Oliver,  September  7, 1774,  in  Mass.  Gazette  (Draper),  no.  3702,  September  8,  1774. 


59]  GO VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  eg 

tions  arose  an  obvious  occasion  for  the  persuasion  even  of 
violence.1  To  threats  of  personal  harm  and  to  the  ill  bodings 
of  a  thoroughly  aroused  and  resolute  people  the  new  coun- 
cillors of  necessity  yielded,  and  to  Gage  was  left  from  the 
original  thirty-six  a  number  insufficient  to  form  a  quorum.2 
He  was  then,  as  a  colonist  wrote,  "  reduced  to  a  miserable 
dilemma — the  Council  is  daily  forsaking  him."3  But  even 
supposing  the  theoretical  completeness  of  his  new  council, 
Gage  at  the  same  time  foresaw  a  further  possibility  when  he 
wrote  to  Lord  Dartmouth:  "The  Council  being  formed,  the 
Assembly  must  act  with  it,  or  annihilate  the  Legislature,  and 
there  is  a  surmise  that  will  be  the  case;"4  and  with  keen 
understanding  he  soon  thereafter  outlined  the  situation  with 
remarkable  clearness  for  one  in  his  position  when  he  ad- 
mitted that  civil  government  was  "  near  its  end,"5  and  con- 
tinued :  "  Precepts  are  issued  for  the  calling  an  assembly  in 
the  beginning  of  next  month,  though  uncertain  whether  the 

1  Cf.  Arew  York  Journal,  no.  1654. 

2 Gov.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  August  27,  1774,  says  24  "have  accepted  the 
honor."     Parliamentary  History,  XVIII. ,  90. 

As  to  the  taking  of  the  oath  on  August  S  by  11  councillors,  including  Lt.  Gov. 
Oliver,  see  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1009,  August  15,  1774;  the  report  of  the  taking 
of  the  oath  by  11  others  on  August  16  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1010,  August 
22,  1774.  Yet  W.  H.  Whitmore,  The  Alassachusetts  Civil  List,  p.  172,  says 
only  10  took  the  oath  of  office.  Only  14  of  the  36  remained  in  service.  Acts 
and  Resolves  of  Mass.,  V.,  507;  Essex  Institute  Historical  Collections,  XIII.,  33. 
In  The  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register,  XXVIII.,  61,  62, 
is  a  list  of  24  who  were  sworn  in;  and  a  list  of  9  of  these  who  resigned.  In 
Journal  and  Letters  of  Samuel  Curwen,  N.  Y.,  1842,  p.  438,  is  given  a  list  of  10, 
presumably  those  who  alone  took  the  oath  of  office. 

3Nath'l  Noyes,  Boston,  August  30,  1774.  New  England  Historical  and 
Genealogical  Register,  April,  1889. 

4  Gov.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  Salem,  August  27,  1774.  4  American 
Archives,  I.,  741-743. 

5 On  September  11,  1774,  King  George  wrote  to  Lord  North:  "...  the  dye 
[sic]  is  now  cast,  the  Colonies  must  either  submit  or  triumph."  Donne,  Corres- 
pondence of  George  II F.  with  Lord  North,  L,  202. 


6q  FROM  PROVINCIAL    TO  COMMONWEALTH  [fa 

people  will  chuse  representatives  :  but  we  may  be  assured  if 
chosen  they  will  not  act  with  the  new  council ;  and  it  is  sup- 
posed, the  project  has  been  to  annihilate  the  said  council,, 
before  meeting,  to  throw  the  refusal  upon  the  governor  to 
act  with  the  old  council  elected  last  session  ;  so  that  we 
shall  shortly  be  without  law  or  legislative  power."1 

This  forecast  by  the  governor  was  remarkably  accurate.2 
The  towns  uniformly  instructed  their  representatives  to  give 
no  regard  to  the  mandamus  council;3  they  threw  upon  the 
executive  the  responsibility  for  his  refusal  to  act  with  the  old 
council ;  and  disregarding  as  illegal  the  governor's  interme- 
diate revocation  of  writs  of  election,  they  proceeded  upon 
the  authority  of  the  towns  and  began  to  "  organize  the  revo- 
lution."4 The  destruction  of  the  mandamus  council  thus  was 
only  one  step  towards  the  dissolution  of  royal  authority  in 
Massachusetts.  Considered  by  itself  the  attempt  thus  sum- 
marily to  regulate  the  colonial  upper  house  was  one  phase 
in  a  rapidly  unfolding  series  of  events;  the  effort  was  char- 
acteristic of  the  aims  and  methods  of  the  home  government ; 
the  result  was  indicative  of  the  approach  of  a  new  era.  The 
action  of  the  towns  attained   its  end  ;5   the  new  council  was 

1  Gov.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  September  2,  1774.  Parliamentary  History, 
XVIII.,  96,  97. 

September  4,  1774,  Paul  Revere  wrote  to  John  Lamb:  "...  our  new- 
fangled counsellors  are  resigning  their  places  every  day;  .  .  .  ."  Frothingham, 
IJfe  of  Warren,  359. 

2  "The  late  Act  for  better  regulating  the  civil  government  of  this  province  has 
operated  just  as  I  expected  it  would.  It  has,  in  effect,  dissolved  the  Government. 
The  people  will  never  acknowledge  the  new  counsellors.  ...  A  stop  is  also  put 
to  the  holding  the  courts  of  justice  upon  the  new  plan.  Thus  we  have  neither 
legislative  nor  executive  powers  left  in  the  province."  Boston  letter  of  Septem- 
ber 13,  1774,  in  London  Chronicle,  November  18,  1774.  Frothingham,  Life  of 
Joseph  Warren,  373. 

3  E. g.,  Boston  Tozon  Records,  XVIII.,  192. 

*  Lecky,  f/islory  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  III.,  420. 

5  For  instructions  or  votes  of  towns  against  the  recognition  of  this  Council, 


<5 1 ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE T TS  5 T 

without  recognition  and  without  power.  The  body  was 
from  the  beginning  a  nullity,  and  received  no  more  subse- 
quent notice  than  was  involved  in  the  repeated  votes  of  the 
the  Provincial  Congress  directed  against  those  who  had 
received,  and  had  not  resigned,  mandamus  commissions. 

§  2 .    Withdrawal  of  the  Royal  Executive 

It  is  evident  that  after  the  events  of  August,  September, 
and  October,  1774,  the  royal  governor  became  an  official 
whose  authority  and  whose  functions  were  largely  titular.1 
His  legislative  powers,  while  no  General  Court  existed,  were 
virtually  in  suspense;  the  enforced  adjournment  of  royal 
courts  limited,  and  practically  removed,  the  possibility  of  an 
exercise  of  judicial  functions  by  the  head  of  the  province ; 
and  the  legal  action  of  the  governor  upon  such  matters,  as 
well  as  upon  many  affairs  of  an  executive  nature,  was  made 
impossible  by  the  complications  which  had  deprived  him  of 
a  council.  The  subordinate  departments  of  the  executive 
branch  transferred,  with  practical  uniformity,  their  recogni- 
tion and  their  obedience  to  the  representatives  of  the  people 
in  the  Provincial  Congress,  and  the  effective  authority  of  Gage 

see:  for  Town  of  Lexington,  September  26,  1774,  Hudson,  History  of  Lexington, 
103;  Framingham,  September  30,  1774,  Barry,  History  of  Era  mi  ngh  am,  91 ; 
Boston,  September  21,  1774,  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1015,  September  26,  1774; 
Cambridge,  October  3,  1774,  Holliston,  October  3,  1774,  Maiden,  September  20, 
1774,  Lincoln  Papers,  Library  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society. 

1  Cf.  Samuel  Peters,  Boston,  October  1,  1774,  to  Rev.  Dr.  Auchmuty,  New 
York :  Speaks  of  the  uprising  on  September  4,  "  when  the  Preachers  &  Magis- 
trates left  the  Pulpit  &c  for  the  Gun  and  Drum,  and  set  off  for  Boston,  cursing  the 
King,  Lord  North,  Genii  Gage,  the  Bishops,  and  their  cursed  Curates,  and  the 
Church  of  England  and  for  my  telling  the  Church  People  not  to  take  up  Arms 
&c  it  being  high  Treason  &c  the  Sons  of  Liberty  have  almost  killd  one  of  my 
Church,  Tarrd  and  feathered  two,  abused  others,  and  on  6th  day  destroyed  my 
Windows  &  Rent  my  Cloaths — even  my  Gown  &  Cassock  &c  crying  out  damn 
the  Church,  the  Rags  of  Popery  &c  &c  their  Rebellion  is  obvious,  Treason  is 
common,  and  Barbarity  is  their  daily  Diversion — the  Lord  deliver  us  from  An- 
archy."    Revohdionary  Corresp.,  II.,  273,  Bancroft  Collection. 


62  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [62' 

was  limited  in  its  extent  to  the  zone  of  British  military- 
influence  ;  the  development  is  shown  in  the  manner  in  which,, 
in  this  man  holding  one  commission  as  a  chief  executive  and 
another  as  a  military  commander,  the  character  and  activity 
of  the  former  official  disappear  in  those  of  the  latter. 

The  assembling  of  such  a  body  as  the  Provincial  Congress 
fell  properly  within  the  cognizance  of  the  royal  governor,  and 
the  position  taken  by  it  in  its  assertions  and  actions  made 
essential  on  his  part  some  treatment  of  the  body  which  would 
define  its  nature  and  the  character  of  its  acts,  and  which  would 
effectually  impose  upon  it  the  responsibility  for  its  course- 
Gage  did  endeavor  to  convince  the  Congress  of  the  illegality 
of  its  course  and  of  its  responsibility  for  the  consequences; 
but  words  alone  could  not  suffice.  The  early  interchange  of 
views  between  the  governor  and  those  whom  he  desired  to 
consider  revolutionists,  served  merely  to  define  the  spirit  of 
the  two  parties  and  to  emphasize  even  then  the  futility  of 
efforts  at  reconciliation  on  any  basis  that  could  possibly  be 
acceptable  to  all  concerned.  The  futility  of  these  is  indi- 
cated, as  are  other  elements  of  the  discussion,  in  the  suggest- 
ive words  used  at  the  conclusion  of  the  second  address  of  the 
Congress  to  Governor  Gage :  "  And  although  we  are  willing 
to  put  the  most  favorable  construction  on  the  warning  you 
have  been  pleased  to  give  us  of  the  '  rock  on  which  we  are,' 
we  beg  leave  to  inform  you  that  our  constituents  do  not 
expect,  that,  in  the  execution  of  that  important  trust  which 
they  have  reposed  in  us,  we  should  be  wholly  guided  by 
your  advice.  We  trust,  sir,  that  we  shall  not  fail  in  our  duty 
to  our  country  and  loyalty  to  our  king,  or  in  a  proper 
respect  to  your  excellency."  r 

On  the  day  after  the  Congress  gave  him  this  ironical  treat- 
ment, the  governor  began  a  letter  to  Lord  Dartmouth  in 
which  he  said  that  he  would  "not  be  surprised,  as  the  pro- 

1  October  29,  1774.     Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  44,  45. 


63]  CO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHU SETTS  g3 

vincial  congress  seems  to  proceed  higher  and  higher  in  their 
determinations,  if  persons  should  be  authorized  by  them  to 
grant  commissions,  and  assume  every  power  of  a  legal  gov- 
ernment, for  their  edicts  are  implicitly  obeyed  throughout 
the  province."1  Along  just  this  line  did  the  congress  pro- 
ceed. After  its  establishment  two  authorities  aimed  to  ad- 
minister government  in  the  same  province.  The  relative 
influence  of  the  two  was  shown  plainly  enough  in  the  failure 
of  Brigadier  Ruggles  to  gain  adherents  to  his  tory  "associa- 
tion," and  in  the  result  of  Gage's  effort  to  support  with  a 
military  force  his  sympathizers  in  the  town  of  Marshfield.2 

With  the  approach  of  the  time  when,  according  to  the 
charter,  the  election  of  representatives  to  the  General  Court 
was  to  be  held  throughout  the  province,  Gage  was  given  a 
definite  opportunity  to  improve  his  position,  an  opportunity, 
however,  which  was  soon  lost.  On  April  i,  1775,  the  Con- 
gress took  up  the  consideration  of  the  proper  course  of  the 
towns,  "in  case  general  Gage  should  send  out  his  precepts 
for  convening  a  new  assembly,  on  the  last  Wednesday  of 
May  next,  and  what  ought  to  be  their  conduct  in  case  he 
should  not  send  out  his  writs."3  Thereupon,  it  was  first 
resolved  that  "  in  case  writs,  in  the  form  the  law  directs, 
should  be  issued,  they  ought  to  be  obeyed." 4  It  was  further- 
more resolved  that  "  in  case  writs  should  not  be  issued  forth,. 

1  Parliamentary  History,  XVIII.,  105. 

Cf.  James  Warren,  Plymouth,  January  1,  1775,  to  Samuel  Adams;  referring  to 
the  tories,  he  continues :  "  Ruggles'  Impudence  is  an  Example  for  them,  and  the 
publication  [sic]  of  Massachussitensis  are  read  with  more  devotion  &  Esteem 
than  Holy  writt."     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Cf.  Joiirtial  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  104. 

Cf  [Samuel  Adams  to  A.  Lee?],  March  4,  1775:  "The  Town  of  Marshfield, 
have  lately  applied  to  G.  Gage  for  leave  to  have  a  meeting,  according  to  the  Act 
of  Parliament,  ....  They  will  be  dealt  with  according  to  the  Law  of  the  Con- 
tinental Congress."     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

Cf.  Winsor,  History  of  Duxbury,  126-129. 

3  Journals  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  1 16.  *  Ibid. 


,64  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [64 

that  a  Congress  be  called,  on  the  last  Wednesday  of  May 
•next;  and  incase  general  Gage  should  not  issue  precepts 
for  calling  an  assembly,  as  the  law  directs,  the  members  of 
the  towns  of  Charlestown,  Cambridge,  Brookline,  Roxbury, 
and  Dorchester,  be  desired  to  publish  this  resolve  and 
appoint  a  place  where  they  shall  assemble."1  Col.  Warren, 
Mr.  Adams,  and  Mr.  Gill  immediately  reported  these  reso- 
lutions in  form  for  publication,  and  they  were  then  ratified, 
with  the  addition  to  the  first  resolution  that,  if  the  towns 
should  obey  the  precepts  to  be  issued  by  Gage,  they  should 
instruct  their  representatives  to  "transact  no  business  with 
the  council,  appointed  by  mandamus ;  and  if  they  should  be 
dissolved,  to  meet  in  a  Provincial  Congress,  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  and  transacting  the  affairs  of  this  colony."2 

The  writs  thus  contemplated  were  issued,  but  the  possi- 
bilities suggested  were  now  removed  by  the  commencement 
of  hostilities,  as  the  Congress  stated  it,  "  by  the  troops  under 
the  command  of  general  Gage,  .  .  .  ."3  The  natural  result 
was  such  action  as  that  of  April  28,  when  the  Congress  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  consider  "the  propriety  of  recom- 
mending to  the  several  towns  and  districts  in  this  colony, 
that  they  take  no  notice  of  the  precepts  lately  issued  by 
general  Gage,  for  calling  a  general  assembly."4  This  mat- 
ter was  further  considered  on  May  4,  when  a  motion  was 
made  to  appoint  a  committee  to  report  a  resolution  recon- 
sidering the  action  of  April  1  ;  upon  this,  after  a  long  de- 
bate, the  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  94  to  13.5  For 
this  duty,  Col.  Warren,  Mr.  Gerry,  and  three  associates  were 
appointed,5  and  their  report  was  rendered  and  accepted  on 
the  following  day.  The  resolution  of  April  1,  inasmuch  as 
"  many  reasons  now  prevail  to  convince  us  that  consequences 
of  a  dangerous  nature  would  result  from  the  operation  of 

1  Journals  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  116.  '*  Ibid.,  116. 

*  Ibid.,  154.  4  Ibid.,  163.  %  Ibid.,  190. 


6 5 ]  GO VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  g c 

that  resolution,"1  is  to  be  considered  null  and  void.  Further- 
more, owing  to  the  "  clandestine  and  perfidious  "  destruction 
of  the  stores  at  Concord,  to  the  fact  that  some  inhabitants 
have  been  "  illegally,  wantonly  and  inhumanly  slaughtered 
by  the  troops,"  and  to  the  course  of  Gage  as  "  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  an  arbitrary  ministry  to  enslave  this  people," 
they  resolve  that  "  the  said  general  Gage  hath,  by  these 
means,  and  many  others,  utterly  disqualified  himself  to 
serve  this  colony  as  a  governor,  and  in  every  other  capacity, 
and  that  no  obedience  ought,  in  future,  to  be  paid  by  the 
several  towns  and  districts  in  this  colony,  to  his  writs  for 
calling  an  assembly,  or  to  his  proclamations,  or  to  any  other 
of  his  acts  or  doings ;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  he  ought 
to  be  considered  and  guarded  against,  as  an  unnatural  and 
inveterate  enemy  to  this  country."2  The  attitude  of  the 
Provincial  Congress  and  the  position  of  the  governor  were 
thus  clearly  defined,  and  their  future  relations  with  each 
other  made  plain.  During  this  period  of  the  second  Pro- 
vincial Congress,  Gage  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  its 
members  by  disconnected  and  less  important  acts,  prominent 
among  which  was  the  agreement  reached  relative  to  the 
withdrawal  of  the  residents  of  Boston.  His  course  in  this 
matter  drew  from  the  Congress  a  remonstrance  containing 
such  innuendoes  as  in  the  following:  that  they  "would  not 
affront  your  excellency  by  the  most  distant  insinuation,  that 
you  intended  to  deceive  and  disarm  the  people,  by  a  cruel 
act  of  perfidy." 3  However,  the  uncomplimentary  sugges- 
tions were  not  unnatural,  for  a  state  of  imminent,  if  not  actual, 
belligerency  existed. 

1  Journals  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  192. 

2  Ibid.,  192,  193.  It  is  characteristic  that  the  next  act  of  the  Congress  was  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  to  report  a  resolution  recommending  that  the  towns 
and  districts  choose  delegates  for  a  new  Provincial  Congress,  to  meet  on  the  last 
Wednesday  of  the  current  month.     Ibid.,  193. 

3  May  10,  1775.     Ibid.,  213. 


66  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [66 

Such  a  relation  was  made  plain  enough  scarcely  a  month 
later,  when  Gage  in  a  vigorous  proclamation x  declared  that  a 
state  of  "avowed  rebellion"  had  been  reached  by  the  "  in- 
furiated multitudes,"  led  by  "  certain  well-known  incendiaries 
and  traitors,  in  a  fatal  progression  of  crimes  against  the 
constitutional  authority  of  the  state,  .  .  ."  Recent  acts  in 
Massachusetts  and  elsewhere  offered  "  marks  of  premedita- 
tion and  conspiracy  that  would  justify  the  fulness  of  chastise- 
ment;" and  such  especially  was  the  act  of  April  19,  when 
"  many  thousands  .  .  .  from  behind  walls  and  lurking  holes, 
attacked  a  detachment  of  the  king's  troops,  who,  not  expect- 
ing so  consummate  an  act  of  phrenzy,  unprepared  for  ven- 
geance, and  willing  to  decline  it,  made  use  of  their  arms  only 
in  their  own  defense."  Amid  such  an  "exigency  of  compli- 
cated calamities,"  the  governor  made  his  last  effort  to  pre- 
vent the  shedding  of  blood,  and  offered  full  pardon  to  all  who 
would  "lay  down  their  arms,  and  return  to  the  duties  of 
peaceable  subjects,"  excepting  only  John  Hancock  and 
Samuel  Adams,  "  whose  offences  are  of  too  flagitious  a 
nature  to  admit  of  any  other  consideration  than  that  of  con- 
dign punishment."  An  inclusive  definition  of  traitorous 
conduct  was  given,  and  martial  law  was  proclaimed. 

This  proclamation  had  immediate  effect.  On  June  15  the 
Committee  of  Safety,  basing  its  action  on  this  "very  extraor- 
dinary proclamation,  in  which  the  inhabitants  of  Massachu- 
setts Bay  are  in  the  most  explicit  manner  declared  rebels," 
and  on  the  accounts  "  brought  to  this  committee  of  the 
movements  of  Mr.  Gage's  army,  and  that  he  intends  soon  to 
make  another  attempt  to  penetrate  into  the  country,"  voted 
that  there  should  be  an  immediate  increase  of  the  provincial 

1  An  original  print  of  this  proclamation  of  June  12,  1775,  published  June  14,  is 
among  the  .{dams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

The  text  is  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  330,  331. 
Cf.  John  Adam-;,  Familiar  Letters,  64. 


67]  GOVERNMENT  IN  .MASSACHUSETTS  fa 

army.1  The  Congress  had  already,  on  June  13,  appointed  a 
committee  to  consider  the  proclamation,2  and  this  was  in- 
creased three  days  later,3  when  also  the  resolution  of  the 
Committee  of  Safety  was  referred  to  Major  Havvley,  Col. 
Warren,  Col.  Prescott,  and  four  associates.4  On  the  same 
day  the  committee  on  the  proclamation  reported,  and  their 
report  was  ordered  to  be  printed  for  publication  throughout 
the  colony.  This  was  largely  an  account  of  the  events  of 
April  nineteenth  and  a  justification  of  the  steps  taken  then 
and  immediately  thereafter,  when  they  aimed  to  protect  their 
"  inheritance,  purchased  at  no  less  a  price  than  the  blood  of 
many  thousands  of  our  brave  ancestors,"  from  the  attack  of 
those  troops  who  "breathed  nothing  but  blood  and  slaugh- 
ter  "  The  occasion  was  taken  to  encourage  the  colo- 
nists and  to  prevent  effective  efforts  by  those  who  would 
help  the  invaders.  The  usual  opportunity  for  a  change  of 
allegiance  was  offered  and  the  customary  steps  proposed 
against  those  who  did  not  accept  pardon  and  come  over  to 
the  colonial  side.  From  the  pardon  thus  offered  General  Gage 
and  Admiral  Graves  were  excepted,  as  well  as  three  coun- 
cillors still  holding  mandamus  commissions — Sewall,  Paxton, 
and  Hallowell — and  those  native  Americans,  not  in  the  army 
or  navy,  who  aided  the  regular  troops  on  the  nineteenth, 
"whose  offences,"  they  follow  Gage  in  saying,  "are  of  too 
flagitious  a  nature  to  admit  of  any  other  consideration  than 
that  of  condign  punishment :    .   .   .   ."5 

The  position  of  Gage  was  made  plain,  even  if  less  endurable, 
by  the  events  of  the  day  following  the  issue  of  this  proclama- 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  568. 

2  Consisting  of  the  president,  Col.  Warren,  Col.  Palmer,  Mr.  Sever,  and  Dr. 
Taylor.     Ibid.,  330. 

3  By  the  addition  of  Col.  Otis  and  Mr.  Johnson.     Ibid.,  341. 
*  Messrs.  Gerrish,  Farley,  Aiken,  Hall.     Ibid.,  340. 

5  The  text  is  in  Ibid.,  344-347. 


68  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [68 

tion ;  the  increased  activity  in  military  affairs  and  the  intro- 
duction of  continental  control  gave  sufficient  seriousness  to 
the  situation  to  impress  upon  Gage  the  fact  that  his  functions 
had  become  exclusively  military,  and  that  from  a  governor 
of  a  people  he  had  become  in  their  eyes  an  outcast  and  a 
traitor.  The  Committee  of  Safety,  on  July  6,  resolved  "that 
it  be  recommended  to  the  honorable  Provincial  Congress, 
now  sitting  at  Watertovvn,  to  recommend  to  the  grand 
American  Congress,  that  every  crown  officer,  within  the 
united  colonies,  be  immediately  seized,  and  held  in  safe  cus- 
tody until  our  friends  who  have  been  seized  by  General  Gage 
are  set  at  liberty,  and  fully  recompensed  for  their  loss  and 
imprisonment."1  On  the  next  day  the  Provincial  Congress 
referred  the  matter  to  a  committee  of  five,2  in  whose  hands 
the  proposal  seems  to  have  "subsided ;"  it  had,  however, 
shown  plainly  enough  the  development  of  the  colonial  feel- 
ing toward  him  who  was  still  nominally  the  executive,  but 
who  in  reality  was  such  no  longer.  The  representatives  of 
the  people,  met  as  a  General  Court  on  the  basis  of  the  "re- 
sumed" charter  of  1691,  declared  that  he  had  deserted  the 
post  which  they  still  considered  technically  that  of  his  duty; 
no  longer  could  he  claim  consideration  as  the  foundations 
were  being  laid  for  popular  government;  politically  a  nullity 
already,  he  soon  relieved  Massachusetts  even  of  his  presence. 

§  3.   Local  Action  in  the  Summer  of  IJJ4 

The  opportunity  offered  to  the  patriot  leaders  by  the  con- 
sideration of  questions  necessarily  arising  from  the  course 
adopted  by  parliament  was  fully  appreciated.  Their  policy 
was  made  plain  and  its  pursuance  easy  by  the  decisive  ac- 
tion of  numerous  town-meetings  and  county  conventions. 
In  August  Dr.  Young  at  Boston  referred  to  the  recent 
county  meeting  as  having  "originated  many  town  meetings 
1  Jotirnal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  589,  590.  2  Ibid.,  463. 


69]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  fig 

which  will  all  be  called  without  asking  his  excellency's 
leave."1  To  Samuel  Adams  in  the  same  letter  he  wrote: 
"The  whole  current  of  Mr.  Gage's  administration  seems  to 
have  its  course  up  hill."2  Although  in  the  following  week 
Governor  Gage  commanded  his  troops  to  disperse  a  Salem 
town-meeting  and  announced  that  he  "  came  to  execute  the 
laws,  not  to  dispute  them, "3  yet  in  the  first  week  in  Septem- 

1  These  derive  additional  significance  from  the  fact  that  many  were  held  during 
a  part  of  the  year  that  for  much  01  the  population  was  the  busiest  season,  e.g., 
cf.  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  214,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Dated  Aug.  19,  1774.     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

Cf.  James  Warren,  Boston,  August  15,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams:  "Mr.  Gage 
sent,  the  day  before  yesterday,  for  the  selectmen,  and  informed  them,  that  he  had 
received  an  act  of  parliament  prohibiting  their  calling  town-meetings  without  a 
license  from  him.  They  told  him,  that  they  should  obey  the  laws  of  the  land; 
.  .  .  ."     Frothingham,  Life  of  Warren,  339. 

Cf.  Boston  Selectmen's  Minutes,  XXIII.,  224,  225. 

3  Nezv  York  yournal,  no.  1653,  September  8,  1774. 

Timothy  Pickering,  Salem,  August  25,1774,  for  Salem  committee,  to  Boston 
committee  of  correspondence  :  stating  that  they  had  received  a  letter  similar  to  that 
sent  to  all  towns  in  the  county  by  Marblehead  committee  proposing  a  county  meet- 
ing; that  they  had  called  a  town  meeting  to  choose  5  or  more  delegates  to  meet  in 
county  conference  at  Ipswich,  September  6.  He  quotes  notification  in  full; 
these  were  printed  and  posted  on  Saturday,  August  20,  calling  meeting  for  the 
following  Wednesday.  "  On  Wednesday  morning  at  eight  o'clock  the  Governour 
sent  us  a  request  to  meet  him  at  9  o'clock  at  Col.  Browne's,  for  '  he  had  some- 
thing of  importance  to  communicate  to  us.'  We  waited  on  him  accordingly. 
He  asked  if  we  avowed  those  notifications.  It  was  answered  by  one  of  the 
conrtee  that  it  was  well  known  that  the  com'tee  of  correspondence  ordered 
the  notifications  for  the  meeting."  A  demand  to  disperse  the  people  was, 
he  writes,  answered  by  a  claim  of  lack  of  authority.  "  He  told  us  he  should  not 
enter  into  a  discourse  about  the  matter,  he  came  here  to  execute  the  laws,  not  dis- 
pute about  them,  &  we  determined  to  execute  them.  For  the  law  he  referred  us 
to  the  Attorney  General  &  Col.  Browne  who  were  present.  He  concluded  by 
telling  us  if  the  people  did  not  disperse,  the  Sheriff  would  go  first;  &  if  he  was  dis- 
regarded and  needed  support,  that  he  would  suppoit  him.  This  he  uttered  with 
much  vehemence."  Account  is  given  by  Pickering  of  the  call  of  the  troops,  of  the 
completion  of  the  meeting,  and  the  subsequent  arrest  of  the  committee,  two  of 
whom  recognized  in  ^100  each  without  sureties,  and  the  rest  of  whom  refused  to 
give  recognizances,  and  "the  Justice  sentenced  them  to  stand  committed  till  they 
should  recognize;  but  nevertheless  he  let  them  go  in  peace,  tho'  no  doubt  they 
will  again  be  arrested."     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  809,  810. 


jO  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [70 

ber  he  wrote  to  his  superior  that  he  feared  his  province 
would  "shortly  be  without  either  law  or  legislative  power."1 
Not  long  thereafter  he  further  wrote  :  "  They  talk  of  fixing  a 
plan  of  government  of  their  own."2  He  saw  that  a  move- 
ment of  local  bodies  was  in  full  progress  which  was  to  sub- 
stitute a  government  by  the  people  for  the  government  of 
Gage  and  the  king.  The  writs  for  the  election  of  members 
of  a  new  house  of  representatives  occasioned  not  only  the 
ordinary  proceedings  but,  as  well,  a  distinct  repudiation  of 
the  governmental  changes  provided  for  in  the  act  of  parlia- 
ment.3 From  the  consideration  of  such  matters  as  were  now 
involved  proceeded  a  series  of  suggestive  assertions,4  ranging 
all  the  way  from  the  action  of  the  town  of  Wilbraham,  the  in- 
struction issued  by  which  "  was  taken  out  of  a  newspaper,"5  to 

1  Gov.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  September  2,  1774.  Sparks  Papers,  XLIIL, 
I.,  192,  Harvard  College  Library. 

2  Gov.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  September  20,  1774.  Sparks  Papers,  XLIIL, 
I.,  195,  Harvard  College  Library.     4  American  Archives,  L,  795. 

:<  Cf.  James  Warren,  Boston,  August  15,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams:  "...  it  is 
not  simply  the  appointment  of  the  council  by  the  king  that  we  complain  of;  it  is 
the  breach  thereby  made  in  our  charter  :  and,  if  we  suffer  this,  none  of  our  charter- 
rights  are  worth  naming;  the  charters  of  all  the  colonies  are  no  more  than 
blank  paper."     Frothingham,  Life  of  Warren,  340. 

Public  sentiment  was  further  defined  in  the  letter  written  by  James  Warren,  for 
the  committee  on  donations,  to  the  committee  of  Norwich  August  27,  1774: 
"  Mr.  Gage  may  issue  his  precepts,  and  his  council  may  sanctify  them;  his  juries 
may  give  verdicts,  and  an  unconstitutional  and  venal  bench  may  pass  judgments : 
but  what  will  this  avail,  unless  the  people  will  acquiesce  in  them?  If  the  people 
think  them  unconstitutional,  of  what  importance  are  their  determinations?  Salus 
popitli  suprema  lex  esto  is  a  precious  old  maxim.  The  ministry  have  forgotten  it; 
but  the  people  are  determined  to  remember  it."  Ibid.,  350,  35^4  Collections 
of  Mass.  Historical  Society,  IV.,  46. 

*  Cf  Thos.  Young,  August  19,  1774:  "  Letters  and  resolves  come  in  to  us  from 
all  quarters,  and  still  on  the  rising  tenor.  Thirteen  were  received  last  Tuesday 
evening,  and  many  are  come  to  hand  since."  Frothingham,  Life  of  Warren,  342, 
343- 

5  Action  dated  "Oct.  3,  1773,"  apparently  taken  October  4,  1774.  Lincoln 
Papers,  Library  of  American  Antiquarian  Society. 


71]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  yY 

the  declaration  of  the  Suffolk  county  convention  that  no  obedi- 
ence was  due  to  the  late  acts  of  parliament.  The  press,  as 
usual  in  this  transitional  period,  shared  in  the  work  of  the 
people.  The  condition  of  affairs  was  thus  described  in  an 
address  to  Lord  North  printed  in  the  Salem  Gazette  :  "  Such 
revolutions  happen  not  upon  every  little  mismanagement  in 
public  affairs.  Great  mistakes  in  the  ruling  party,  and  many 
wrong  laws,  and  slips  of  human  frailty,  will  be  borne  by  the 
people ;  but  if  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  artifices,  all  tend- 
ing the  same  way,  make  the  design  visible  to  the  people, 
and  they  see  whither  they  are  going,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
that  they  should  rouse  themselves,  for  specious  names  and 
forms  are  worse  than  the  state  of  nature  or  pure  anarchy."1 
The  specious  interpretations  of  right  put  forward  by  parlia- 
ment should  be  ignored;  the  charter  of  1691  should  be  ad- 
hered to  with  great  strictnesss.2  And  so  at  Concord  150 
committeemen  of  Middlesex  county  resolved,  "  that  we  will 
obey  all  such  Civil  Officers,  now  in  Commission,  whose 
Commissions  were  issued  before  the  first  day  of  July,  1774, 
and  support  them  in  the  execution  of  their  offices  according 
to  the  manner  usual  before  the  late  attempt  to  alter  the  Con- 
stitution of  this  Province ;  nay,  even  although  the  Governor 
should  attempt  to  revoke  their  commissions."3  So  too  the 
town  of  Marblehead,4  in  its  instructions  to  its  representatives, 
claimed  that  all  officers  not  chosen  according  to  the  charter 
were  without  legal  authority;  and  the  Essex  county  conven- 

1  Salem  Gazette  and  Newbtiry  and  Marblehead  Advertiser,  Vol.  I.,  no.  8, 
August  19,  1774. 

2  Cf.  Oration  by  Joseph  Warren  at  Boston,  March  6,  1775  :  "  The  mutilation  of 
our  charter,  has  made  every  other  colony  jealous  for  its  own  ;  for  this,  if  once  sub- 
mitted to  by  us,  would  set  on  float  the  property  and  government  of  every  liiitish 
settlement  upon  the  continent.  If  charters  are  not  deemed  sacred,  how  miserably 
precarious  is  everything  founded  upon  them."     Niles,  Principles  and  Acts,  22. 

3  Essex  Gazette,  no.  320,  September  6-13,  1774. 

4  Essex  Gazette,  no.  307,  June  7-14,  1774- 


72  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [72 

tion1  likewise  defied  parliament  by  asserting  that  town-meet- 
ings should  still  be  called  according  to  ancient  usage  and  the 
province  laws.2  This  point  in  the  revolutionary  program  was 
brought  out  also  by  the  Cumberland  county  convention3  at 
Falmouth  when  it  recommended  that  the  justices  and  other 
civil  officers  should  continue  to  act  according  to  the  charter, 
and  that  no  one  should  accept  a  commission  based  on  the  act 
of  parliament  relative  to  the  government  of  Massachusetts. 

The  convention  of  Essex  county  towns,  in  connection  with 
the  action  already  mentioned,  resolved  that  a  Provincial 
Congress  was  absolutely  necessary  and  that  the  representa- 
tives of  the  various  towns  in  the  assembly  should  be  in- 
structed to  resolve  themselves  into  such  a  congress.  In  the 
same  week  the  Boston  Gazette  had  stated :  "  Town,  meet- 
ings, and  county  meetings,  are  now  held  and  calling  in  all 
parts  of  the  province ;  a  provincial  congress  is  like  to  be  soon 
appointed."  4  These  meetings  having  defined  the  attitude  of 
the  province  toward  the  acts  of  parliament  and  the  charter, 
their  attention  was  further  directed  to  the  practical  measures 
before  them.  Many  important  town-meetings  were  held  and 
many  equally  important  county  conferences.  A  meeting  of 
these  committees  from  four  counties  was  held  in  Faneuil 
Hall,  Boston,  on  August  26,  and  planned  resistance  to  the 
two  acts  and  the  calling  of  a  Provincial  Congress.5 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  615-618. 

2  Cf.  Action  of  Hampshire  county  convention,  September  22,  23,  Journal  of 
the  Provincial  Congress,  621 ;  £/".  Action  of  Plymouth  county  convention,  Ibid., 
624. 

8  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  657-660. 

*  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1012,  supplement,  September  5,  1774. 

5  Cf.  Frothingham,  Rise  of  the  Republic,  356. 

"  Every  town,  with  the  utmost  alacrity,  chose  one  or  more  of  the  most  respect- 
able gentlemen,  to  meet  in  provincial  congress,  .  .  .  ."  Warren,  History  of  the 
American  Revolution,  I.,  161.        « 

The  Boston  committee  represented  Suffolk  county;  Worcester,  Middlesex,  and 


73]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA  CHUSE TTS  y? 

The  establishment  of  a  provisional  government  was  by- 
some  happily  planned  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  a  firm 
adherence  to  the  provincial  charter.  Thus  the  town  of  Dan- 
vers,  while  in  its  instructions  to  its  representative  enjoining 
the  recognition  only  of  the  council  elected  in  May,  con- 
tinued :  "  and  as  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  a  conscien- 
tious discharge  of  your  duty,  will  produce  your  dissolution 
as  an  house  of  Representatives,  we  do  hereby  impower  and 
instruct  you  to  join  with  the  Members"1  in  forming  a  Pro- 
vincial Congress.  Similarly  the  town  of  Brookline  intro- 
duced its  direction  to  join  in  a  Provincial  Congress  with  the 
injunction  to  adhere  to  the  charter,  a  course  which  they  ex- 
pected would  s.oon  procure  the  dissolution  of  the  House.2 
While  the  maintenance  of  the  charter  was  uniformly  insisted 
upon,  little  emphasis  was  laid  on  the  necessity  of  observing 

Essex  counties  were  also  represented.  It  was  voted  that  by  the  late  act  all  judges 
of  the  superior  and  inferior  courts  and  of  the  common  pleas,  the  attorney  general, 
marshals,  justices  of  the  peace,  and  others,  were  "  rendered  unconstitutional  offi- 
cers." On  the  next  day,  August  27,  a  committee  report  was  accepted  advocating 
opposition  to  courts  held  according  to  the  late  act,  and  expressing  the  opinion : 
"  That  a  Provincial  Congress  is  necessary  for  concerting  and  executing  an  effectual 
plan  for  counteracting  the  system  of  Despotism  mentioned,  as  well  as  for  substi- 
tuting referree  Committees  during  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  Courts  of  Justice 
in  the  province;  and  that  therefore  each  County  will  act  wisely  by  choosing  mem- 
bers as  soon  as  may  be  for  said  Congress;  and  by  resolutely  executing  its  measures 
when  recommended."     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  61-63,  Bancroft  Collection. 

'September  27,  1774.  Lincoln  Papers,  Library  of  American  Antiquarian 
Society. 

-September  27,  1774.     Li7icoln  Papers.     Cf.  Koxbury,  September  28,  1774. 

A  meeting  of  delegates  from  towns  in  Suffolk  and  Middlesex  counties,  held  Sep- 
tember 26,  1774,  at  Holliston,  voted  to  choose  representatives,  to  name  the  same 
men  for  a  provincial  congress,  and  to  leave  the  time  of  the  congress  to  the  assem- 
bly, "  because  it  would  be  needless  if  not  improper  to  have  two  provincial  Assem- 
blies Setting  at  one  Time — for  they  might  superceed  or  counteract  one  another 
and  so  get  into  confusion." 

"  Because  they  will  know  when  they  have  done  as  a  House  (which  it  is  thot 
will  be  very  soon)  and  will  be  together  to  go  immediately  upon  business  as  a 
Congress  without  loss  of  time,  or  expence  of  long  Journies."  Revolutionary 
Corresp.,  III.,  671-673,  Bancroft  Collection. 


74  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [74 

strict  legality  during  the  process  of  transition.  Some  would 
recognize  the  extremity  of  the  situation  and  would  act  ac- 
cordingly. Thus  the  town  of  Beverly  instructed  its  repre- 
sentative to  the  October  assembly  "that  when  the  said  great 
and  General  Court  is  convened  you  use  your  endeavors  that 
the  members  thereof  form  themselves  into  a  Provincial  Con- 
gress." '  The  town  of  Wrentham  voted  that  it  was  "the 
Opinion  of  this  town  that  a  Provincial  Congress  is  necessary 
and  that  the  seventh  resolve  passed  by  the  Convention  in 
and  for  the  County  of  Essex  respecting  said  Provincial  Con- 
gress is  a  Method  which  this  town  would  choose  to  adopt  in 
Case  the  Province  in  General  shall  adopt  the  same.  .  .  .  "  2 

Complete  and  definite  directions  were  given  by  the  towns 
to  their  representatives,  and  an  adherence  to  those  instruc- 
tions occasioned  the  first  steps  in  the  transition.  Prompt 
and  plain  action  by  the  towns  was  the  most  effective  element 
in  the  revolutionary  beginnings  in  Massachusetts,  and  the 
most  significant  factor  in  the  transition  was  the  continuance 
of  the  vitality  and  authority  of  local  political  organisms. 
The  recent  acts  of  parliament  had  been  directed  not  only  to 
the  alteration  of  the  council  and  the  abolition  of  the  elective 
jury,  but  as  well  to  the  strict  limitation  of  the  freedom  and 
independence  of  town  action.3  Thus  for  all  town-meetings 
except  the  annual  meetings  the  governor's  consent  was  a 
prerequisite.  By  repeated  adjournments  a  town  meeting 
could  be  given  an  indefinite,  even  if  constructive,  continu- 
ance ; 4  by  a  technicality  the  governor's   consent  was  ren- 

1  Action  of  September  26,  1 774.     Lincoln  Papers. 

2  Action  of  September  15,  1774.  Lincoln  Papers.  Cf.  Gloucester's  action  of 
September  20,  1774.  Ibid.  Cf.  Boston's  action  of  September  21,  1774.  Boston 
Gazette,  no.  1015,  September  26,  1774.     Cf.  Frothingham,  Life  of  Warren,  379. 

3  14  Geo.  III.,  ch.  46,  §  7. 

4  Upon  this  point  the  Boston  Town  Records  afford  suggestive  material,  showing 
the  long  and  contemporaneous  extension  by  repeated  adjournments  both  of  the 
"  May  meeting"  and  of  the  "  Port  Bill  meeting." 


75]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA  CHUSE TTS  7  r 

dered  unnecessary,  and  soon  the  protection  even  of  a  tech- 
nicality was  disregarded.1  The  power  of  the  executive  was 
openly  condemned,  and  the  governor  clearly  recognized  the 
situation.  His  own  helplessness  revealed  more  definitely  by 
contrast  the  power  of  the  towns.  By  them  had  first  been 
asserted,  and  maintained,  a  claim  for  the  continued  exercise 
of  customary  rights,  and  particularly  for  the  continuance  of 
town-meetings  as  under  the  old  system.  Successful  in  their 
first  effort,  the  towns  thus  secured  for  themselves  a  practi- 
cally unbroken  existence,  and  greatly  promoted  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  revolutionary  movement.  Necessarily  by  such 
an  addition  there  was  brought  in  an  element  of  authority, 
and  the  presence  of  such  greatly  increased  the  vigor  and 
success  of  the  colonial  efforts.2  By  the  towns  the  program 
of  action  was  defined ;  under  their  express  direction  the 
various  steps  were  taken.  The  mandamus  council  by  threat 
and  force  was  made  a  nullity ;  the  constructive  abdication  of 
the  governor  was  followed  by  the  end  of  the  royal  legisla- 
ture;  the  king's  governor  was  virtually  made  a  prisoner  in 
Boston,  and  the  king's  treasurer  was  given  neither  recogni- 
tion nor  payments  ;  by  popular  expressions,  justifiable  and 
other,  an  effective  and  final  check  was  put  on  judicial  action. 
The  lead  of  the  towns  was  followed  to  the  end,  and  there 
was  quickly  attained  a  complete  dissolution  of  royal  govern- 
ment.    In  the  general   collapse  there   remained   unaffected 

]The  plainest  indication  on  the  part  of  the  colonists  of  some  uncertainty  as  to 
the  propriety  of  their  action  appeared  in  the  letter  of  John  Gerry,  Marblehead, 
July  23, 1774,  to  Boston  committee  :  "  but  altho  We  shall  pay  no  Regard  to  ye  Act 
respecting  Town  Meetings  lately  passed  by  parliament  in  general,  yet  we  think 
it  most  prudent  to  have  this  Eusiness  finished  before  ye  first  of  August  .  .  .  ." 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  495,  Bancroft  Collection. 

s  Milton  held  19  town  meetings  in  1778.  Teele,  History  of  Milt 071,  420.  The 
town-meeting  of  Braintree  was  in  session  13  days  in  1774,  23  days  in  1777,  17 
days  in  1780.  Braintree  Toivn  Records, passim.  The  Boston  town  meeting 
was  in  session  at  least  30  days  in  the  year  1774,  more  than  30  days  in  1775,  and 
more  than  40  days  in  1779.     Boston  Town  Records,  passim. 


76  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [76 

the  factor  which  had  immediately  occasioned  such  collapse 
and  which  was  to  remove  the  effects  thereof;  the  town  sys- 
tem found  its  justification  in  its  service  to  the  revolutionists 
when  it  rendered  possible  a  quick  and  fairly  conservative 
transition,  free  from  the  violent  methods  which  usually  ac- 
company revolutions.1 

§  4.  End  of  the  Provincial  Legislature 

The  concluding  period  of  the  history  of  the  royal  legisla- 
ture in  Massachusetts  may  fitly  be  dated  from  the  assembling 
of  the  General  Court  after  the  May  elections  of  1774.  The 
last  session  of  the  General  Court  under  Hutchinson  had 
ended  only  after  the  governor's  secretary  had  awaited  its  will 
outside  the  closed  door;  and  unfortunately  the  new  body 
was  to  exhibit  no  better  spirit  to  Hutchinson's  successor. 
The  months  between  the  two  sessions  had  been  a  preparation 
for  the  crisis ;  the  course  of  parliament  radically  changed 
the  situation  and  prospects.  Now  many  such  complaints 
could  find  utterance  as  were  expressed  by  Sam  Adams  in  a 
letter  to  James  Warren,  when  he  referred  to  the  receipt  of  a 
"  copy  of  an  Act  of  the  British  Parliament,  wherein  it  appears 
that  wc  have  been  tried  and  condemned,  and  are  to  be  pun- 
ished, .  .  .  ."2  Matters  were  at  a  tension ;  the  governor 
rejected  more  than  a  dozen  councillors;  even  the  com- 
mencement at   Harvard   College  was   omitted;3   all  was  sus- 

1  The  importance  of  the  town  system  in  this  period  I  have  indicated  in  a  tenta- 
tive manner  in  an  article  on  "The  Political  Activity  of  Massachusetts  Towns  dur- 
ing the  Revolution,"  to  be  published  in  the  Report  of  the  American  Historical. 
Association  for  /Sgj. 

2  May  14,  1774,  to  James  Warren,  4  Collections  of  Mass.  Historical  Society, 
IV.,  390.  I  find  a  draft  of  this  over  the  autograph  initials  of  Samuel  Adams,  read- 
ing: '"wherein  it  appears  that  the  Inhabitants  of  this  Town  have  been  tryed  and 
condemned  and  are  to  be  punished  .  .  .  ."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  II.,  17, 
Bancroft  Collection.  Another  copy,  with  some  variation,  signed  by  Samuel 
Adams,  is  in  Ibid.,  III.,  55.     Cf.  Frothingham,  Life  of  Warren,  303. 

3  Boston  Gazette,  June  6,  1774. 


77~l  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  jn 

pense.  The  assembly  was  allowed  to  sit  only  a  few  days  in 
Boston,  when  it  was  "  unexpectedly  adjourned"1  by  the  gov- 
ernor to  meet  at  Salem,  June  7.2  Now,  wrote  Scollay,  "we 
have  all,  from  the  cobbler  up  to  the  senator,  become  politic- 
ians."3 Work  for  the  politicians  was  abundant ;  the  crisis  came 
on  the  day  when  the  Bostonians  repudiated  the  faction  which 
would  pay  for  the  £ea  that  had  been  thrown  into  the  harbor, 
and  when  at  Salem  the  governor's  secretary,  who  brought 
the  writ  of  dissolution,  was  by  the  house  deliberately  kept 
waiting  outside  the  locked  door  until  its  work  was  done  and 
the  call  sent  forth  for  a  general  congress.  The  short  session, 
which  thus  ended  summarily4  on  June  17,  had  sufficed  for 
the  passage  of  a  few  acts  of  ordinary  legislation,5  but  was 

1  Samuel  Adams  to  Silas  Deane,  Boston,  May  31,  1774:  "Our  Assembly  was 
unexpectedly  adjourned  on  Saturday  last  till  the  seventh  of  June,  then  to  meet  at 
Salem.  By  this  means  I  am  prevented  mentioning  a  Congress  to  the  members. 
I  wish  your  Assembly  could  find  it  convenient  to  sit  a  fortnight  longer,  that  we 
might  if  possible  act  in  Concert.  This  however  is  a  sudden  Thought."  Adams 
Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  The  resolutions  of  the  house  of  June  8  against  the  pretended  necessity  of 
moving  the  General  Court  to  Salem,  and  the  address  of  the  house  to  the  governor 
of  June  9  on  the  same  subject,  are  in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  icoo,  June  13,  1774. 

3  May  31,  1774,  4  American  Archives,  I.,  369. 

*  Cf.  John  Adams,  Falmouth,  July  5,  1774,  to  Abigail  Adams:  "James  Sullivan 
at  dinner  told  us  a  story  or  two.  One  member  of  the  General  Court,  he  said,  as 
they  came  down  stairs  after  their  dissolution  at  Salem  said  to  him,  '  Though  we 
are  killed,  we  died  scrabbling,  did  not  we?' 

"  This  is  not  very  witty,  I  think. 

"  Another  story  was  of  a  piece  of  wit  of  brother  Porter,  of  Salem.  He  came 
upon  the  floor  and  asked  a  member,  '  What  state  are  you  in  now?'  The  member 
answered,  '  In  a  state  of  nature.'  '  Aye,'  says  Porter,  '  and  you  will  be  damned 
before  you  will  get  into  a  state  of  grace.'  "     Fa?niliar  Letters  of  John  Adams,  12. 

5  The  Governor  on  June  1 7  signed  eight  acts.  A  list  of  the  titles  is  in  the 
Massachusetts  Spy,  no.  177,  June  23,  1774.  The  acts  are  published  in  Acts  and 
Resolves  .  .  .  of  the  Province  of  Massachusetts,  V.,  387-412.  Three  of  these  acts 
were  printed  on  pp.  517-521  of  "Temporary  Acts  and  Laws  of  .  .  .  Massachu- 
setts Bay  .  .  .  Boston ;  .  .  .  Green  and  Russell  .  .  .  1763."  Of  this  volume  pp. 
1-179  are  for  the  years  1 736-1 763;  pp.  180-528  carry  it  into  1774,  the  latter  part, 
although  printed  subsequently,  being  paged  consecutively.  A  copy  is  in  the 
Library  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 


j%  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [^g 

chiefly  important  from  the  fact  that  its  utterances  made 
clearer  than  ever  before  the  opposition  between  the  legisla- 
tive and  the  executive  branches  of  the  government.  The 
address  of  the  council  to  the  governor  even  attributed  to  the 
two  immediate  predecessors  of  Gage  the  tendency  to  dis- 
union and  the  "present  distressed  state"  of  Massachusetts. 
The  ground  taken  by  the  council  was  maintained  in  a 
manner  far  too  outspoken  for  the  governor.  He  interrupted 
the  reading  of  the  address,  and  replied  that  he  could  not  re- 
ceive it,  as  it  was  "  an  Insult  upon  his  Majesty  and  the  Lords 
of  his  Privy-Council,  and  an  Affront  to  myself."1  That  the 
lower  house  of  the  legislature  was  equally  firm  in  opposition 
is  shown  by  the  small  size  of  the  minority  on  June  17  ;2  and 
an  indication  of  the  popular  spirit  appeared  in  the  unsought 
prominence  attained  by  those  few  who  opposed  the  first  step 
toward  the  organization  of  a  national  governing  body  and  a 
national  resistance.  The  popular  elements  of  the  govern- 
ment were  now  a  unit,  and  even  if  their  leaders  were  "  sen- 
sible, that  .  .  .  their  conduct  must  be  styled  rebe//iou,"3 
they  realized  the  necessities  of  the  case  and  acted  accord- 
ingly.    "Their  transactions  might  have  been  legally  styled 

1  The  address  and  the  reply  are  printed  in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  iooi,  June  20r 

1774. 

The  records  of  the  council,  June  7-June  17,  are  in  Mass.  Archives,  Court 
Records;  30:  272-302.  The  address  was  adopted  June  9,  13  members  being 
present;  the  governor's  reply  was  received  June  14.  Their  last  act,  on  June  17, 
after  concurring  with  the  lower  house  in  appropriating  .£500  for  the  expenses  of 
the  Continental  Congress  delegation,  was  to  send  down  a  bill  changing  a  man's 
name. 

'l  The  house  had  129  members  at  Salem;  the  statement  is  made  in  Boston 
Gazette,  no.  1001,  June  20,  1774,  and  in  New  York  Journal,  no.  1643.  A  list  of 
members  elected  is  in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  99S,  May  30,  1774.  The  minority  on 
the  resolves  of  June  17  is  given  as  twelve,  in  A'eiu  York  Journal,  no.  1643,  where 
eleven  are  named.  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1001,  June  20,  1774,  printed  an  identical 
list  of  eleven,  and  indicated  uncertainty  as  to  the  position  of  one  member. 

3  Warren,  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  I.,  13s. 


79]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  yg 

treasonable,  but  loyalty  had  lost  its  influence,  and  power  its 
terrors."1  Its  own  efforts  brought  the  sudden  dissolution  of 
the  legislature;  the  session  furthered  the  contest;2  and  still 
more  preparation  for  the  crisis  was  now  possible  in  the  few 
weeks  preceding  the  nomination  of  the  mandamus  council 
and  the  issue  of  writs  for  the  election  of  a  new  representative 
body  to  sit  with  this  new  upper  house.  Those  intervening 
weeks  were  marked  with  significant  and  effective  activity; 
the  signs  of  a  crisis,  whether  of  a  constitutional  or  a  political 
nature,  were  many  and  were  such  as  to  make  it  plain  that  an 
end  must  soon  be  reached.  With  much  meaning,  in  those 
weeks,  did  John  Adams  write  to  James  Warren  :  "  Politics 
are  an  ordeal  path  among  red-hot  ploughshares."3 

The  involved  question  of  the  legality  of  Gage's  with- 
drawal of  the  writs  of  election  was  to  be  ended,  if  not  de- 
cided, early  in  October,  1774.  The  nature  of  the  coming 
conclusion  had  been  already  indicated  in  the  action  of  the 
towns.  They  now  had  definite  aims  and  a  definite  plan  of 
action ;  to  serve  their  purpose  and  lend  respectability  to 
their  claims  they  advanced  arguments  of  a  constitutional 
character,  and  based  their  claims  upon  a  painfully  strict  in- 
terpretation of  the  language  of  the  charter.  In  reality,  how- 
ever, constitutional  argument  was  fast  giving  place  to  po- 
litical conflict;  the  colonists  now  had  reached  the  point  from 
which  there  must  be  movement  either  forward  or  backward  ; 
public  feeling  left  no  question  as  to  the  direction  which  the 
movement  would  take ;  and  there  was  as  little  doubt  that  the 
advance  would   necessarily  involve   a  complete  disregard   of 

1  Warren,  History  of  tho  American  Revolution,  I.,  136. 

2  Even  from  New  York  Alex.  McDougall,  June  26,  1774,  wrote  to  Samuel 
Adams  with  reference  to  the  votes  of  June  17:  "The  manner  of  their  doing  the 
last  is  very  judicious  and  agreeable  to  me,  ....  The  time  is  now  come  .  .  . 
when  it  would  be  proper  to  push  our  Committee,  which  will  be  done  to-morrow 
evening."     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

3June  25,  1774,  Works  of  John  Adams,  I.,  149;  IX.,  339. 


So  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [go 

constitutional  quibbles.  Thus,  early  in  September,  Thomas 
Young  expressed  a  common  assurance  when  he  wrote  to 
Samuel  Adams  that  "  the  Laws  of  God,  of  Nature  and  Na- 
tions oblige  us  to  cast  about  for  safety."1  Turning  from 
theory  to  the  tangible  problem  at  hand,  he  wrote  in  the  same 
letter:  "By  all  our  advices  from  the  westward  the  body  of 
the  people  are  for  resuming  the  old  charter,  and  organizing 
a  government  immediately."  Elections  of  representatives 
were  being  held  by  the  various  towns,  but  the  elections  were 
accompanied  by  such  votes  and  resolutions  as  to  make  it 
plain  that  the  continued  existence  of  royal  legislative  power 
was  decidedly  problematical.  That  such  was  the  prevalent 
belief  is  made  reasonably  clear  in  a  letter  written  in  the  first 
week  of  September  by  a  prominent  Connecticut  man.  Re- 
ferring to  the  many  town-meetings  in  Massachusetts  he 
writes:  "However,  you  shall  have  my  conjecture,  to  wit: 
the  Act  of  Parliament  they  will  say  has  dissolved  the  Com- 
pact; that  they  are  in  a  State  of  Nature  ;  and  have  a  right  to 
make  a  new  Constitution  ;  and  on  that  principle,  adopt  the 
Province  first  Charter  and  make  choice  of  Govr,  Dep.  Govr, 
Secretary,  and  other  officers  necessary,  and  endeavor  to 
establish  a  Constitution,  in  defence  of  which  they  will  spend 
all  their  treasure  and  blood."2  Thus,  whatever  might  be 
done,  the  elections  to  the  new  house  were  a  form  and  little 
more ;  it  was  a  necessary  step  in  order  to  put  the  governor 
ostensibly  in  the  wrong;  yet  in  that  step  the  unanimity  of 
the  people  was  revealed. 

The  attitude  of  the  towns  was  defined  by  the  elaborate  in- 
structions given  to  the  representatives  who  were  now  being 
elected   in   accordance  with  the  writ  of  September  I.     The 

'Thomas  Young,  Boston,  Sept.  4,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams,  Philadelphia. 
Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Col.  Gurdon  Saltonstall,  Wethersfield,  Conn.,  Sept.  5,  1774,  to  Silas  Deane. 
Collections  Connecticut  Historical  Society,  II.,  150,  1 5 1. 


8l]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  3X 

definition  of  their  attitude  and  the  indications  given  by  many- 
acts  of  the  colonists  seem  to  have  convinced  Gage  of  the 
folly  of  convening  the  legislative  body.  Its  mere  assembling 
would  precipitate  a  decision  of  strength  on  the  question  of 
the  council.  His  mandamus  council  having  been  reduced, 
by  forced  resignations,  to  less  than  a  quorum,  a  complete 
General  Court  was  an  apparent  impossibility.  Even  a  com- 
promise on  the  composition  of  the  next  body  to  be  termed  a 
General  Court  was  equally  impossible,  inasmuch  as  the  gov- 
ernor could  not,  with  any  regard  to  his  instructions  or  to  the 
consistency  of  his  position,  recognize  as  a  council  the  men 
chosen  by  the  General  Court  in  the  preceding  May.1  Thus 
it  could  not  be  foreseen  what  developments  would  attend  a 
meeting  of  the  General  Court;  an  abundance  of  contin- 
gencies merely  confirmed  the  executive  in  a  step  which 
transactions  around  him  already  seemed  to  render  imperative. 
Accordingly,  on  September  28,  Gage  issued  a  proclamation2 
annulling  the  earlier  issue  of  writs  of  election.  Acting  upon 
a  liberal  interpretation  of  his  powers,  by  this  act  he  simply 
exercised  his  constitutional  right  incident  to  the  clause  in  the 
charter  which  gave  the  governor  "  full  power  and  Authority 
from  time  to  time  as  he  shall  Judge  necessary  to  adjourne 
Prorogue  and  dissolve  all  Great  and  Generall  Courts  or  As- 
semblyes  met  and  convened  as  aforesaid."3 

1  Cf.  Postscript  of  letter  of  conference  at  Holliston,  Sept.  26,  1774,  transmitted 
to  Boston  committee  by  Samuel  Locke,  of  Sherburne :  "  You  will  allow  me  to 
Suggest  a  wish  Gentn  that  Some  Hint  might  be  given  publickly  with  respect  to  yc 
meeting  of  our  old  Constitutional  Counsil  on  y°  5th  of  next,  to  claim  their  Seats 
and  offer  their  Service — at  least  to  ye  House  if  ye  Govr  will  not  be  advised  by 
them."     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  673,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  The  text  is  given  in  pp.  3,  4,  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress.  Reference 
is  therein  made  to  "the  many  tumults  and  disorders  which  have  since  [Sept.  1] 
taken  place,  the  extraordinary  resolves  which  have  been  passed  in  many  of  the 
counties,  the  instructions  given  by  the  town  of  Boston,  and  some  other  towns,  to 
their  representatives,  and  the  present  disordered  and  unhappy  state  of  the  pro- 
vince," as  rendering  the  action  expedient. 

3  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  I.,  12. 


82  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [82 

Under  these  circumstances  there  were  no  men  in  the  col- 
ony legally  entitled  to  sit  in  a  General  Court.  Opposite 
ground  was  held  by  the  colonists.  By  them  it  was  claimed 
that  the  issue  of  writs  of  election,  at  the  order  of  the  gov- 
ernor, could  take  place  only  after  the  governor  had  deter- 
mined that  a  condition  existed  which  made  such  issue  essen- 
tial or  proper.  When  such  a  condition  was  declared  to  exist, 
and  when,  accordingly,  the  governor  had  taken  such  pre- 
liminary action,  a  series  of  processes  was  begun  and  the 
completion  of  the  series  was  essential  and  even  required. 
Thus,  for  no  reason  could  the  issue  of  writs  of  election  fail 
to  be  immediately  followed  by  all  the  processes  of  an  election 
and  by  a  session  of  the  General  Court.  As  indicated,  the 
executive  acted  upon  an  opposite  theory ;  and  he  further 
maintained  his  view  by  his  course  of  action.  His  withdrawal 
of  the  writs  of  election  was  appropriately  followed  by  his 
omission  to  recognize  or  meet  with  the  men  chosen  by  the 
towns  to  serve  as  their  representatives.  Nevertheless,  the 
ninety1  representatives  who  gathered  at  Salem,  October  5, 
considered  themselves  a  constitutional  body,  and  as  such 
awaited  with  "cautious  courtesy"  the  appearance  of  the  ex- 
ecutive, or  of  his  representative,  whose  presence  was  essen- 
tial to  the  organization  of  a  General  Court.  A  provisional 
organization2  was  effected  by  the  men  thus  gathered,  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  consider  the  governor's  recent 
proclamation.  The  executive  failing  to  appear,  the  men  who 
thought  themselves  a  royal  assembly  brought  matters  to  an 
issue  by  the  adoption,  on  October  7,  of  a  brief  series  of  par- 

1 1  find  this  number  stated  in  Mass.  Spy,  no.  193,  Oct.  13,  1774. 

The  same  statement  is  made  in  "Journals  of  Each  Provincial  Congress  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, p.  4,  where  reference  is  made  to  Gordon,  History  of  the  American 
Revolution,  I.,  280,  and  where  a  general  reference,  without  citations,  is  made  to 
the  Essex  Gazette,  Mass.  Spy,  Boston  Evening  Post,  and  Boston  Gazette. 

3  John  Hancock  was  chosen  chairman,  and  Benjamin  Lincoln,  clerk.  Jour- 
nals, p.  4. 


83]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA  CHUSE TTS  g ■> 

tisan  resolves.  Excessive  stress  was  laid  in  these  upon  the 
words  of  the  charter  which  oblige  the  governor  to  "convene, 
'upon  every  last  Wednesday  in  the  month  of  May,  every 
year  forever,  and  at  such  other  times  as  he  shall  think  fit, 
and  appoint  a  great  and,  general  court.' "  As  they  further 
held  that  the  governor's  power  to  adjourn,  prorogue  and 
dissolve  the  General  Court  could  not  be  exercised  until  after 
a  General  Court,  once  called,  had  "  met  and  convened,"  *  they 
asserted  that  Gage's  action  of  September  28  was  "against 
the  express  words,  as  well  as  true  sense  and  meaning  of  the 
charter  and  unconstitutional;"  and  that  it  was  "unjust,  and 
disrespectful  to  the  province.  .  .  ."2  They  considered  that 
"his  representations  of  the  province  as  being  in  a  tumult- 
uous and  disordered  state,  are  reflections  the  inhabitants 
have  by  no  means  merited ;  and,  therefore,  that  they  are 
highly  injurious  and  unkind."  3  As  the  pretended  cause  of 
the  proclamation  of  September  28  had  existed  for  some  time, 

the  delay  of  such  proclamation  caused  unnecessary  expense 

• 

1  In  this  connection  should  be  noticed  the  procedure  in  1755.  The  Assembly 
stood  prorogued  to  September  24,  but  news  from  Crown  Point  caused  the  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  and  Council  to  think  an  Assembly  essential;  and  it  was  called 
to  meet  September  5.  In  the  short  session  four  acts  were  passed,  for  levying 
troops  for  Crown  Point,  supplying  the  treasury  with  ;£  16,000,  punishing  deserters, 
and  assessing  a  tax  of  ^18,000.  Doubts  were  expressed  as  to  the  legality  of 
these  acts,  and  accordingly  the  General  Court  in  the  session  beginning  September 
24  confirmed  the  acts  of  the  earlier  session.  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province 
of  Mass.,  III.,  882.  For  this  there  was  no  precedent  in  Massachusetts,  and 
reference  was  made  to  the  session  of  Parliament  of  July  25,  1667.  Cf.  Ibid., 
HI.,  95°- 

2  yonrnal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  5. 

3  Ibid.,  6. 

Cf.  Samuel  Adams,  Philadelphia,  September,  1774:  "  If  the  only  constitutional 
council,  chosen  last  May,  have  honesty  and  courage  enough  to  meet  with  the 
representatives  chosen  by  the  people  by  virtue  of  the  last  writ,  and  jointly  pro- 
ceed to  the  public  business,  would  it  not  bring  the  governor  to  such  an  explicit 
conduct  as  either  to  restore  the  general  assembly,  or  give  the  two  Houses  a  fair 
occasion  to  declare  the  chair  vacant?"     Frothingham,  Life  of  Joseph  Warren,  377. 


84  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [84 

and  trouble  to  those  elected,  and  should  thus  be  considered 
as  discourteous  to  the  province.  Some  of  the  causes  "  as- 
signed .  .  .  for  this  unconstitutional  and  wanton  prevention 
of  the  general  court,  have,  in  all  good  governments,  been 
considered  among  the  greatest  reasons  for  convening  a  par- 
liament or  assembly." 

These  men  now  voted  to  "resolve  themselves  into  a  Pro- 
vincial Congress,  to  be  joined  by  such  other  persons  as  have 
been  or  shall  be  chosen  for  that  purpose,  to  take  into  consid- 
eration the  dangerous  and  alarming  situation  of  public  affairs 
in  this  province,  and  to  consult  and  determine  on  such  meas- 
ures as  they  shall  judge  will  tend  to  promote  the  true  interest 
of  his  majesty,  and  the  peace,  welfare  and  prosperity  of  the 
province."1  Thus  ended  the  last  attempt  in  Massachusetts  to 
maintain  the  royal  legislature ;  then  was  taken  an  important 
step  in  the  progress  of  revolution.2  Then,  indeed,  were  the 
people  "  compelled  to  turn  their  thoughts  and  attention  to 
other  methods  of  preventing  the  impending  destruction."3 

§  5.   Closing  of  the  Royal  Courts 

The  enforced  cessation  of  activity  on  the  part  of  the  royal 
legislature  and  the  rapid  neutralizing  of  the  power  of  the 
royal  executive  comprised  only  a  portion  of  the  transitional 
events  at  this  period.  During  the  same  months  definite  ex- 
pression was  given  not  only  to  the  popular  hatred  of  the 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  6. 

2  Lieut.  Governor  Hutchinson's  History  of  Massachusetts  ends  thus:  "The 
people,  by  their  own  authority,  formed  a  legislative  body;  and  from  that  time  all 
pacifick  measures  for  restoring  their  former  dependence  upon  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  British  dominions,  were  to  no  purpose."  Op.  cit.,  III.,  460.  Of 
the  first  volume  of  this  work  Ezra  Stiles  wrote :  "  It  is  my  opinion  that  this 
History  contributed  more  than  anything  else  to  reviving  the  ancestorial  spirit  of 
Liberty  in  New  England  on  this  occasion."  [1765.]  Papers  of  Ezra  Stiles,  41, 
Bancroft  Collection. 

3 Neiv  York  Journal,  no.  1672,  Jan.  19,  1775. 


85]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  g? 

methods  of  royalty,  but  also  to  the  local  opposition  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  newly  constituted  royal  courts,  and  to  the 
feelings  aroused  in  the  earlier  contest  over  the  impeach- 
ment of  Chief  Justice  Oliver.  The  bitter  and  widespread 
discontent  now  made  more  severe  the  tension  between 
royalty  and  democracy,  and  sounded  the  key-note  of 
the  policy  of  vigor  and  even  of  violence  that  was  soon  to 
occasion  the  sudden  collapse  of  a  judicial  system  which  for 
some  months  had  been  without  foundation.  Thus,  even  of 
the  year  1773,  it  could  be  written:  "There  was  not  a  justice 
of  the  peace,  sheriff,  constable,  or  peace  officer  in  the 
province,  who  would  venture  to  take  cognizance  of  any 
breach  of  law,  against  the  general  bent  of  the  people."1 
Such  a  strong  characterization,  indeed,  could  Governor 
Hutchinson  reiterate  with  the  added  emphasis  of  intervening 
history  when  he  wrote  concerning  the  early  months  of  1774: 
"The  course  of  law  was  now  wholly  stopped  .  .  .  ."2  In  the 
early  spring  of  that  same  year  "  even  one  of  the  Assembly- 
men, a  Col.  Gardner,  who  was  afterwards  killed  at  the  Battle 
of  Bunker's  Hill,  declared  in  the  General  Assembly,  that  he 
himself  would  drag  the  Chief  Justice  from  the  Bench,  if  he 
should  sit  upon  it."3  And  not  untruly,  then,  could  the 
Berkshire  loyalists  in  the  following  August  join  with  their 
congratulations  to  Gage  on  his  appointment  the  terse  state- 
ment: "The  fences  of  law  are  broken  down;"4  for  the 
movement  was  then  well  under  way  which  was  to  overthrow 
the  courts  of  the  king  and  prepare  the  ground  for  the  estab- 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  III.,  437. 

2  Hid,  III.,  454. 

3  From  a  MS.  entitled  "  The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  American  Rebellion 
to  the  Year  1776.  In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend,"  reprinted  in  part  in  Diary  and 
Letters  of  Thomas  Hutchinson,  I.,  141-147;  the  quotation  here  given  is  from 
P-  145- 

4  Dated  August  10,  1774;  4  Collections  of  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
X.,7I5. 


86  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [86 

lishment  of  a  new  judicial  system,  comprising  old  forms,  to 
be  sure,  but  resting  upon  the  recognition  of  a  shifting  of  sov- 
ereignty. 

The  effort  of  parliament  to  effect  a  transfer  from  town- 
meetings  to  crown  officials  of  certain  powers  relative  to  the 
choice  of  jurors  was  met  by  a  distinct  response  from  a  united 
people.1  For  them  the  charter  of  1691  and  the  statutes  of 
Massachusetts  were  ample ;  in  theory  the  action  of  parlia- 
ment was  beyond  the  colonial  conception  of  propriety;  in 
practice  the  people  must  retain  their  honored  right  of  elect- 
ing jurymen.  And  as  the  popular  program  had  been  to  ig- 
nore the  constitutional  existence  of  a  new  council  appointed 
by  the  crown,  so  in  this  connection  as  well  the  king's  parlia- 
ment was  considered  incompetent  to  act,  and  its  action  upon 
such  contested  ground  was  treated  as  of  no  effect.  The  ad- 
ministrative situation  on-  August  20  was  described  by  Ben- 
jamin Kent  in  his  letter  to  Samuel  Adams,  as  follows:  "Our 
Constables  have  precepts  deliver'd  them  to  make  return  to 
the  Sheriff  of  all  persons  liable  to  serve  on  juries,2  according 
to  the  late  Act  of  Parliament — but  they  are  unanimously  de- 
termined not  to  pay  any  regard  to  them."3  Nevertheless, 
an  effort  at  ordinary  procedure  was  made,  although  now 
every  step  was  marked  by  an  irregularity  that  foreboded  no 
good.     At    Boston,4   ten    days    after    Kent   was    writing   to 

xFor  an  expression  even  in  the  preceding  year,  cf.  Andover,  instructions  to 
representative,  June  1,  1773:  "We  already  see  the  Subject  depriv'd  of  his  essen- 
tial Right  to  a  Tryal  by  Juries :  his  House  &  Business  expos'd  to  a  Parcel  of 
low-liv'd  officers  under  the  absolute  Direction  of  the  Crown,  and  our  civil  Mag- 
istrates dependant  on  the  same  for  their  support :  We  have  seen  a  Native  of  this 
Province  invested  with  a  Power  resembling  that — that  of  a  Spanish  Inquisitor." 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  I.,  125,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Cf.  John  Adams,  Familiar  Letters,  29,  30. 

3  Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

4  The  conference  of  delegates  from  four  counties  which  was  held  in  Boston, 
August  26  and  27,  adopted  a  committee  report  of  which  a  portion  drawn  up  but 
not  accepted  was  as  follows :  "  That  every  officer  belonging  to  ye  Courts  y° 


87]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  87 

Adams,  "  the  Superior  Court  met,  when  the  recorded  Traitor 
had  the  impudence  to  take  his  seat  as  Chief  Justice,  but  to 
his  great  mortification,  met  with  that  scorn  &  Contempt  he 
so  justly  deserves.  The  Grand  Jurors  &  Petit  Jurors  with 
a  Resolution  &  firmness  becoming  free  born  Americans, 
nobly  refused  to  take  the  Oaths;"1  and  on  the  next  day  the 
court  proceeded  to  business  "  as  is  usually  transacted,  with- 
out juries."2  In  New  England,  however,  by  statute  and  by 
popular  custom,  the  elective  jury  was  a  vital  and  cherished 
element  of  the  judicial  system.  That  it  was  actually  such 
the  people  of  Boston,  fortunately  in  a  temperate  manner, 
soon  made  manifest.  The  same  week  that  the  regular  busi- 
ness of  the  court  at  Boston  was  interrupted,  a  certain 
"Amicus"  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams:  "  The  judges  have  in- 
formed the  governor  that  the  execution  of  their  office  is  at 
an  end."3 

While  thus  in  Boston  the  courts  were  made  to  yield  to  the 
"bent"  of  the  popular  will  in  a  manner  not  friendly  at  least, 
even  if  not  insurrectionary,  throughout  the  rest  of  the  corn- 
People  in  either  County  of  this  Province  will  conduct  properly,  by  dispersing  ye 
Judges  when  met  for  ye  purpose  of  Judicature,  in  every  Way  that  shall  not  be 
productive  of  Carnage  &  Bloodshed."  There  is  also  a  variation  of  this  form. 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  69,  Bancroft  Collection. 

1  Letter  of  Nath'l  Noyes,  Boston,  August  30,  1774;  New  England  Historical 
and  Genealogical  Register,  April,  1889,  xliii,  146,  147.  The  reasons  formed  and 
offered  by  these  jurymen  are  printed  in  Niles,  Principles  and  Acts,  319,  320. 

Cf.  Paul  Revere  to  John  Lamb,  September  4,  1774.  Frothingham,  Life  of 
Warren,  359.  Goss,  Life  of  Paul  Revere,  I.,  150.  Cf  4  American  Archives, 
I.,  748,  749. 

On  the  same  day,  September  4,  Joseph  Warren  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams :  "  If 
we  should  allow  the  county  courts  to  sit  one  term  upon  the  new  establishment, 
what  confusion,  what  dissensions,  must  take  place!"  Frothingham,  Life  of 
Warren,  357. 

2  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1012,  supplement,  September  5,  1774. 

3  Dated  September  5,  1774;  this  letter  also  tells  of  the  removal  of  the  gun- 
powder from  the  wind-mill  and  of  the  meeting  of  3000  men  at  Cambridge  on  the 
morning  thereafter.     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 


88  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [88 

monwealth  the  same  end  was  attained  usually  by  methods 
more  summary  and  by  means  far  less  justifiable.  Thus  in 
recounting  the  events  of  August,  a  single  newspaper  ar- 
ticle *  cited  the  enforced  withdrawal  of  the  attorney- 
general  from  Cambridge  to  Boston ;  the  extortion  from 
Sheriff"  Phips,  of  Middlesex  county,  of  a  promise  to  serve  no 
more  processes ;  the  interruption  or  prevention  of  judicial 
proceedings  at  Springfield,2  at  Plymouth,3  at  Taunton,4  and  in 
Berkshire  county ; 5  and  furthermore  the  episode  at  Worces- 

1  "  Plain  English  to  the  Provincial  Congress."  Reprinted  from  the  Boston  Post 
in  Rivington's  Gazette:  or  the  Con?iecticut,  Hudson's  River,  A'ew  yersey,  and 
Quebec  Weekly  Advertiser,  no.  99,  March  9,  1775.  This  appeared  under  date 
of  Feb.  20,  in  the  Mass.  Gazette  (Draper),  no.  3726,  February  22,  1775. 

':  On  August  26,  delegates  of  25  towns  and  districts  in  Hampshire  county,  and 
of  plantation  "  number  five,"  met  at  Hadley  and  named  a  committee  of  five  to 
present  the  statement  then  drawn  up  for  the  signatures  of  the  judges  at  Spring- 
field on  the  last  Tuesday  in  the  month.  A  statement  was  presented  and  signed  in 
a  modified  form;  the  people  voted  that  the  reply  was  unsatisfactory,  that  the  court 
should  not  sit,  and  that  the  committee  should  inform  the  judges  of  these  two 
votes  "  and  request  of  them  a  speedy  answer,  Whether  they  were  determined  to 
sit  contrary  to  the  sense  of  this  assembly,  which  passed  in  the  affirmative.  Ac- 
cordingly the  said  comittee  waited  on  the  said  justices  informing  them  of  the  votes 
above  mentioned  and  soon  reed,  the  following  answer:  That  they  would  not  sit 
contrary  to  the  minds  of  the  people.  And  further  saith  not."  This  complete 
account,  dated  August  31,  1774,  signed  by  the  five  men  of  the  committee  men- 
tioned, was  sent  to  the  Boston  committee.  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  699— 
701,  Bancroft  Collection.      Cf.  Smith,  History  of  Pittsfield,  197. 

:i"On  Tuesday  the  fourth  instant,  there  was  a  great  confluence  of  people  in 
this  town,  to  prevent  the  sitting  of  the  court,  in  imitation  of  the  example  of  other 
counties,  it  being  expedient  and  necessary  at  this  critical  conjuncture,  to  maintain 
a  similarity  of  sentiment,  and  uniformity  of  action.  The  affairs,  respecting  the 
declaration  of  the  justices,  recantation  of  addressing,  &c.  were  managed  by  the 
delegates  of  the  county  conventions."  Plymouth  letter  in  Mass.  Spy,  no.  195, 
October  27,  1774. 

4  Cf.  4  American  Archives,  1.,  732.  5  Ibid.,  L,  724. 

"We  hear  from  Great  Barrington,  in  the  government  of  Massachusetts  Bay, 
that  last  week,  ...  a  great  number  of  people  assembled,  supposed  to  be  1500 — 
would  by  no  means  permit  the  court  to  proceed,  and  at  last  they  were  obliged  to 
retire  without  doing  any  business."  New  York  journal,  no.  165 1,  August  25, 
1774.  Cf.  quotation  from  Mass.  Gazette  and  Newsletter  in  Smith,  History  of 
Pittsfield,  196. 


89]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  gg 

ter,1  where  a  presumably  respectable  mob  of  5,000  stopped 
the  work  of  the  judges  of  the  court  of  common  pleas  and 
forced  the  judges,  lawyers,  and  sheriff,  with  hats  off,  to  walk 
between  double  files  and  disavow  not  less  than  thirty  times  the 
holding  of  courts  under  the  new  acts  of  parliament.  To  this 
record  of  the  public  acts  of  the  time  the  same  article  added 
more  than  a  score  of  instances  of  the  use  of  force,  or  of 
equally  effective  threats,  against  royal  officials  either  in 
mandamus  council  or  in  the  judicial  department.  And  thus 
the  judiciary  of  Berkshire,  of  Worcester,  of  Hampshire,  of 
Middlesex,2  and  of  other  counties,  drifted  toward  the  goal  of 
dissolution  which  the  courts  of  Suffolk  had  already  reached. 
So,  too,  the  provincial  press  aimed  to  bring  about  the  "simi- 
larity of  sentiment,  and  uniformity  of  action  "  suggested  by 
the  men  of  Plymouth.  The  movement,  plainly,  was  not  that 
of  a  single  town  or  county,  or  of  a  group  of  such,  but  of  a 
politically  united  population ; 3  it  was  at  the  same  time  a 
radical  movement  and  one  summarily  effective  in  overturning 

1  Cf.  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1013,  September  12,  1774. 

E.  g..  The  Worcester  County  Convention  on  August  31  "  Resolved,  That  it  is 
the  indispensable  duty  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  county,  by  the  best  ways  and 
means,  to  prevent  the  sitting  of  the  respective  courts  under  such  regulations  as 
are  set  forth  in  a  late  act  of  parliament,  entitled,  an  act  for  regulating  the  civil 
government  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay."  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress, 
632.  The  Worcester  County  Convention  on  September  6,  1774,  "Voted,  as  the 
opinion  of  this  convention,  that  the  court  should  not  sit  on  any  terms."     Ibid.,  635. 

2  As  to  the  closing  of  the  court  at  Concord,  September  13,  1774,  see  Shattuck, 
History  of  Concord,  88. 

3  Gov.  Gage  wrote  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  September  2,  1774:  "Civil  Government 
is  near  its  end;  the  Courts  of  justice  expiring  one  after  another." — 4  American 
Archives,  I.,  767-769.     Also  in  Parliamentary  History,  XVII I.,  96. 

Cf.  Pittsfield  committee,  July  25,  1774,  to  Boston  committee:  "Our  Court 
being  the  first  in  the  province  after  the  taking  place  of  those  Acts  we  ask  your 
Advice  and  Opinion,  &  desire  your  speedy  Sence  in  this  matter  of  so  great 
Moment,  that  we  may  act  in  concert  with  the  whole  province  as  much  as  possible. 
We  hope  you'll  not  fail  to  transmit  to  us  your  Opinion  touching  this  matter  be- 
fore the  sitting  of  sd.  Court.  We  expect  to  get  it  adjourned  unless  we  should 
hear  from  you."     Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  607,  608,  Bancroft  Collection. 


go  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [90 

the  existing  judicial  system  and  in  preparing  the  ground  for 
the  establishment  of  a  new  system  on  an  entirely  different 
basis.1  And  while  of  the  period  of  judicial  hiatus  it  could 
be  said  that  then  "  were  the  bands  of  society  relaxed,  law  set 
at  defiance,  and  government  unhinged  throughout  the  prov- 
ince," 2  nevertheless  the  conservatism  of  the  people  and  their 
"similarity  of  sentiment"  assured  to  their  "uniformity  of 
action"  a  salutary  character,  and  imparted  to  such  action 
even  a  type  of  positive  efficiency. 

Concerning  the  impending  interim  in  judicial  matters, 
John  Adams,  on  September  26,  wrote  from  Philadelphia : 
"  It  Seems  to  be  the  general  opinion  here  that  it  is  practic- 
able for  Us,  in  the  Massachusetts  to  live  wholly  without  a 
Legislature  and  Courts  of  Justice  as  long  as  will  be  necessary 
to  obtain  Relief.  If  it  is  practicable,  the  general  Opinion  is, 
that  We  ought  to  bear  it."3  A  fortnight  later  the  Continental 
Congress  resolved  "  That  the  Congress  recommend  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Colony  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay,  to  sub- 
mit to  a  suspension  of  the  administration  of  justice,  where  it 
cannot  be  procured  in  a  legal  and  peaceable  manner  under 
the  rules  of  their  present  charter,  and  the  laws  of  the  colony 
founded  thereon."4  And  it  is  a  striking  feature  of  the 
transitional  period,  especially  during  the  critical  beginning, 
that  the  even  temper  of  the  people  and  their  unselfish  ambi- 
tion to  mitigate  the  possible  evils  of  impending  anarchy 
could  so  completely  and  so  effectively,  for  the  time  being, 
remove  the  necessity  for  established  courts  of  law.5     Public 

1  Cf.  Boston  Gazette,  Sept.  18,  1775;   Lincoln,  History  of  Worcester,  75. 
"Warren,  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  .  .  .  Boston,  1805,  I.,  145. 

3  To  Jos.  Palmer  of  Germantown;  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical 
Register,  (July,  1876)  XXX.,  306.  Works  of  John  Adams,  I.,  154,  155.  But 
cf,  Adams  to  Tudor,  Sept.  29,  1774;  Ibid.,  IX.,  347;  and  cf  Adams  to  Burgh, 
Dec.  28,  1774;   Ibid.,  IX.,  351. 

4  Resolve  of  October  10,  1774;   4  American  Archives,  I.,  908,  909. 

5The  committee  of  Gloucester,  August  17,  1774,  to  the  Boston  committee: 


-9 1  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  g  1 

opinion,  and  the  high  ideals  of  the  citizens,  prevented  con- 
fusion on  the  dissolution  of  the  courts.  The  effects  of  such 
dissolution  were  patent  for  considerably  more  than  a  year, 
during  which  time,  as  Washburn  states,  "  the  defect  of  courts 
of  justice  was  in  some  places  supplied  by  the  establishment 
of  local  tribunals  for  the  trial  of  causes,  but  more  by  the 
spontaneous  action  of  the  people  in  restraining  crime  and 
enforcing  justice."1  Instances  of  such  provisional  courts  ap- 
pear early.  Thus,  on  September  5,  1774,  the  town  of  South 
Brimfield  "  voted  to  choose  twelve  men  as  a  court  of  justice 
and  honour,  to  judge  and  determine  all  controversies  that 
may  hereafter  arise  in  Sd  District."  In  the  same  month 
Maiden  chose  a  similar  board  of  twelve,  and  on  December 
6  the  town  of  Attleborough  elected  four  judges  for  a  superior 
court  and  seven  judges  for  an  inferior  court  in  the  town.2  A 
board  such  as  that  in  Maiden  and  in  South  Brimfield  was, 
on  January  5,  1775,  chosen  by  the  town  of  Billerica,  al- 
though in  this  last  instance  less  power  was  given  to  the 
newly  created  court,  and  provision  was  made  for  a  reference 
of  matters  to  the  town  for  final  decision.3     But  all  such  were 

"A  County  Congress  is  just  now  propos'd."  The  avoidance  of  law  suits  "  may 
be  promoted  by  such  a  Congress  which  would  be  a  further  Proof  of  our  Unanim- 
ity so  much  dreaded  by  our  insolent  Oppressors."  Revolutionary  Corresp., 
Til.,  336,  Bancroft  Collection. 

1  Washburn,  Judicial  History  of  Massachusetts,  165. 

2  Lincoln  Papers.  In  the  case  of  Maiden  a  quorum  of  seven  was  established. 
As  to  Attleborough,  cf.  Washburn,  Judicial  History  of  Massachusetts,  165; 
Daggett,  History  of  Attleborough,  121,  122. 

As  to  the  erection  of  a  local  judiciary  in  Pittsfield,  cf  Smith,  History  of  Pitts- 
field,  381-384. 

3  Certain  cases  also  were  tried  before  the  local  committees.  In  Hampshire 
county,  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  one  town  committee  to  another  local 
committee  within  the  county  was  allowed;  appeals  were  taken  in  1776  to  the 
Northampton  committee  from  the  decisions  of  the  Amherst  committee  by  Wm. 
Boltwood,  Isaac  Goodale,  Ephraim  Kellogg,  and  other  residents  of  Amherst. 
Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

A  further  kind  of  procedure  is  shown  by  the  letter  of  April  19,  1776,  sent  by 


g2  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [92 

local  efforts  to  supply  what  must  be  formed  only  by  the 
commonwealth  itself.  And  yet  they  were  a  clear  recognition 
of  the  needs  of  the  time,  and  of  the  fact  that  the  courts  of  the 
king  had  in  Massachusetts  adjourned  forever.  Thereafter 
the  basis  of  such  organs  of  government  was  to  be  essentially 
different;  the  state  itself  had  been  altered,  and  the  judicial 
system,  in  substance  and  theory  if  not  in  all  points  of  super- 
ficial procedure,  must,  with  the  other  organs  of  the  state, 
recognize  and  coincide  with  the  alteration.  The  transition 
is  described  bluntly  but  with  truth  by  the  following  passage 
inserted  in  the  records  of  the  superior  court:  "N.  B. — The 
Superior  Court  did  not  sit  in  the  county  of  Middlesex  in  Oc- 
tober, 1774,  by  reason  of  the  difficulty  of  the  times,  and 
there  was  no  term  of  the  said  court  in  that  county  until  Oc- 
tober, 1776.  And  the  continued  actions  are  carried  forward 
by  a  special  order  of  the  general  court."1  With  this  revived 
general  court,2  under  the  "resumed"  charter,  the  restoration 
was  begun,  which  was  to  be  completed  under  the  new 
constitution. 

the  Amherst  committee  to  Hatfield,  Northampton,  and  Sunderland.  To  Nor- 
thampton it  was  written :  "  Gentelemen  hereby  is  Presented  the  Request  of  the 
Committee  of  Amherst  that  you  would  oblige  your  Brethren  with  the  assistance 
of  three  of  your  Committee  of  Correspondence  in  the  Important  Trial  of  the 
Revd  Mr.  David  Parsons  upon  a  Complaint  of  his  being  unfrindly  to  the  intrests 
of  the  Continent."  The  trial  was  appointed  for  April  24,  at  Elisha  Ingram's 
house,  Amherst,  and  the  Northampton  committee  appointed  a  delegation  to 
attend.     Llawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

1  Quincy's  Reports,  I.,  Mass.,  340.  The  Superior  Court  was  revived  in  Essex 
County,  June  28,  1776,  Worcester  County,  September  25,  1776,  and  Suffolk 
County,  August  2S,  1778.  Washburn.  Judicial  History  of  Massachusetts,  166. 
The  Superior  Court  of  Essex  County  at  Ipswich  on  the  third  Tuesday  in  June, 
1776,  is  given  as  the  first  court  held  under  the  new  government.  Quincy's  Re- 
ports, 340. 

2  L.  Lincoln,  Worcester,  Nov.  7,  1775,  to  Joseph  Clark,  Northampton:  "Our 
Courts  are  about  forming,  .  .  .  ."     Haivley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

E.g.,  John  Adams,  Familiar  Letters,  160,  171,  227.  Cf.  Whitney,  History  oj 
Worcester  county,  16;  Lincoln,  History  of  Worcester,  88;  Works  of  John 
Adams,  II.,  332. 


CHAPTER  IV 

EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL   BODIES 

In  "The  American  Querist"  the  seventy-sixth  question 
was:  "Whether  the  colonies,  in  a  great  measure,  have  not, 
for  ten  years  past,  been  under  an  iniquitous  and  tyrannical 
government,  namely,  the  government  of  unprincipled  mobs ; 
and  whether  experience  has  not  yet  convinced  us,  that  this 
mode  of  governing  a  country  is  most  detestable?"1  This 
small  pamphlet  was  written  anonymously  by  the  president 
of  King's  College,  was  published  by  the  tory  Rivington,  and 
was  burned  by  the  "  sons  of  liberty."  It  was  distinctly,  thus, 
a  partisan  statement,  and  yet  by  the  exaggeration  of  the 
enormity  he  opposes,  the  author  yields  an  unwilling  confes- 
sion of  the  political  effectiveness  of  this  new  "  mobocratick"2 
power.  What  by  one  party  was  considered  an  abuse  of 
power,  and  as  such  thoroughly  reprehensible,  was  by  the 

1  [Cooper.]      The  Avierican   Querist,  24,  25.     A  further  characterization,  of 
similar  tenor,  appeared  in  a  speech  said  to  have  been  delivered  in  the  New  York 

assembly  by  "  I c  W s,  Esq.,"  who  referred  to  committees,  associations, 

and  congresses :  "  They  have  already  driven  this  Colony  to  the  brink  of  a  preci- 
pice; some  of  our  sister  colonies  (I  speak  it  with  deepest  concern)  have  already 
taken  the  desperate  plunge;  and  unless  the  clemency  of  Great  Britain  shall  work 
a  miracle  in  their  favour,  I  know  not  how  they  will  escape  perdition."  Riving- 
ton's  Gazette,  no.  103,  April  6,  1775,  Cf.  Short  Advice  to  the  Counties  of  Arew 
York,  11.  Cf.  "A  Freeman,"  in  the  Salem  Gazette,  vol.  I.,  no.  6,  August  5, 
1774.     Cf.  "  McFingal,"  canto  III.     Trumbull,  Poetical  Works,  I.,  95,  96. 

2  Referring  to  the  continent  of  North  America :  "  There  mobocratick  majesty 
has  usurped  a  power  unknown  to  European  and  Asiatick  despots ! — A  General 
Congress,  Provincial  Congresses,  Committees  of  Safety,  Committees  of  Commerce, 
and  S*b-committees  of  select  Men,  all  are  law-makers  and  law-breakers;    .... 
James  Stewart,  Total  Refutation  of  Dr.  Price,  3,  4. 

93]  93 


94  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [94 

opposing  party  held  to  be  a  proper  exercise  of  power,  and  in 
all  respects  justifiable.1  Aside  from  the  relative  merits  of 
the  case,  it  was  evident  that  the  rise  of  new  forms  of  political 
activity  and  the  development  of  new  organs  of  political  ex- 
pression was  a  striking  phenomenon  during  the  transition 
from  the  province  to  the  commonwealth,  and  immediately 
preceding  that  series  of  events.  It  was  significant,  as  well,, 
although  chiefly  so  from  the  political  point  of  view.  In  the 
history  of  constitutional  development  minor  importance 
attaches  to  the  various  extra-constitutional  forms  or  bodies 
which  appear  ;  but  from  this  statement  the  Provincial  Congress- 
may  be  excepted.  The  work  of  that  body,  however,  was 
largely  facilitated  and  its  practical  authority  strengthened  by 
the  effective  manner  in  which  the  population  was  politically 
organized.  The  deliberate,  sure,  and  effective  action  of  the 
smaller  political  divisions,  at  a  time  presumably  of  utter  de- 
moralization, attests  the  influence  and  the  importance  of 
those  less  prominent  organizations  which  served  to  control 
the  population  and  to  give  it  political  unity  and  efficiency.. 
Their  forms  and  their  detail  of  procedure  may,  in  this  con- 
nection, be  relatively  unimportant,  but  the  general  effect  and 
even  the  existence  of  such  are  not  to  be  disregarded.  By 
the  maintenance  of  them  a  direct  connection  was  secured 
between  each  Provincial  Congress  and  every  individual  in  the 
population  which  it  aimed  to  direct.  It  was  made  possible 
that  the  resolutions  of  the  provincial  body  should  be  brought 
to  every  inhabitant  with  all  the  force  of  law.      Every  person 

1  Many  formal  protests  were  made  against  the  actions  of  the  committees.  Thus 
a  protest  from  men  of  Worcester  characterized  them  as  "  being  creatures  of 
modern  invention,"  "  having  no  legal  foundation,"  and  spoke  of  "  their  past  dark 
and  pernicious  proceedings :   .  .  .  ."     Boston  News  Letter,  June  30,  1774;   Mass. 

Gazette,  July  4,  1774;  Worcester  Town  Records,  230-233.  This  protest,  which 
was  called  a  "  Peice  of  Low  Cunning,"  occasioned  a  special  meeting  of  the  town, 
on  August  22  and  24,  when  the  committees  were  strongly  endorsed.      Worcester 

Town  Records,  236-239.     Cf.  Boston  Town  Records,  XVIII.,  178. 


g$~]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CI1  USE  TTS  n  e 

was  made  to  realize  that  there  was  in  the  province  a  body- 
exercising  authority  which,  in  his  eyes  at  least,  was  tangible 
and  effective.  It  was  made  such  largely  by  the  co-operation 
of  county  committees  and  town  committees,  whether  of  cor- 
respondence, inspection,  safety,  or  regulation,  and  by  the  less 
active  assistance  of  such  bodies  as  county  conferences  and 
conventions. 

The  attainment  by  the  revolution  of  its  "  breath  of  life" 
has  been  attributed  to  the  action  of  Samuel  Adams  in  the 
Boston  town-meeting  of  November  2,  1772.1  If  the  motion 
which  led  to  the  creation  of  the  Boston  committee  of  corres- 
pondence could  have  had  even  approximately  the  effect  on 
continental  politics  thus  rhetorically  indicated,  much  more 
decisive  must  have  been  its  influence  upon  Massachusetts. 
To  be  sure,  the  step  which  occasioned  the  vigorous  state- 
ment of  the  inherent  rights  of  the  colonists  "  as  men  and 
Christians  and  as  subjects ;  .  .  .  "2  must  have  induced  a 
profound  revival  of  the  political  consciousness  of  the  peo- 
ple. Such  an  awakening  was  essential  to  success,  and  its 
occasion  was  significant.  The  step  which  caused  such  gen- 
eral appreciation  of  natural  rights  was,  however,  even  more 
important,  in  that  it  was  promptly  followed  by  the  choice  in 
many  towns  of  a  committee  of  correspondence.  The  adop- 
tion of  the  Boston  recommendation  was  so  general  that  the 
range  of  influence  of  these  committees  may  not  improperly 
be  stated  as  comprising  the  whole  province.3  In  each  case 
the  more  regular  and  more  important  correspondence  was 

1  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  contains  an  original  printed 
notification,  dated  Nov.  16,  of  the  meeting  of  Nov.  20,  and  a  manuscript  draft, 
attested  by  Wm.  Cooper,  of  the  famous  report  adopted  on  the  latter  date. 

2  See  Sabin,  Bibliotheca  Americana,  no.  6568.  f/!  Wells,  Life  of  Samuel 
Adams,  I.,  502-507. 

3  However,  cf  action  of  Wilbraham,  April  20,  1773,  the  preamble  referring  to 
the  inaction  of  other  towns,  "  Since  the  most  Antient  Towns  in  the  Same  County 
have  lain  still  and  done  nothing."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  I.,  9S7,  Bancroft 
Collection. 


/ 


96  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [96 

that  maintained  by  each  town  committee  with  the  committee 
at  Boston.  All  looked  thither  for  advice  and  direction.1 
Thence  came  the  assistance,  the  encouragement,  and  the 
suggestions  that  prepared  the  people  for  intelligent  opposi- 
tion ;  and  thence  came  to  all,  as  well,  a  most  forcible  exposi- 
tion of  their  position,  and  insistence  upon  their  rights  and 
their  duties.  This  "campaign  of  education"  was  one  that 
made  the  population  much  more  nearly  harmonious  in  their 
political  beliefs.  The  process  that  followed  Samuel  Adams' 
act  of  inspiration  was  such  as  to  make  the  population  a  unit 
also  for  all  purposes  of  political  action  ;2  and  in  this  latter  re- 
sult lay  the  deeper  significance.  The  people  thus  secured  a 
central   body  whose  word   was    given   uniform   respect   and 

1  Rochester  committee,  October  26,  1773,  to  Boston  committee  of  correspond- 
ence :  "  Our  Eyes,  Gentlemen,  (under  God)  are  unto  you.  Your  local  Sitnation, 
as  well  as  some  other  Circumstances,  gives  you  advantages  above  your  Brethren 
in  ye  Country,  both  for  obtaining  &  communicating  Intelligence  of  ye  various 
Movements  of  our  Enemies,  &  of  their  plots  &  designs  against  us."  Revolution- 
ary  Corresp.,  Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  777. 

Committee  of  Abington,  August  17,  1774.  to  the  Boston  committee:  "and  a 
Provincial  Congress  appears  to  us  to  be  Expedient  to  be  Immediately  appointed 
in  order  that  the  Sense  of  the  Several  Towns  may  be  known  whether  they  will 
comply  with  the  New  Act  of  Parliament  relative  to  Jurymen  for  our  Executive 
Courts.  However,  we  referr  all  those  Things  to  your  Wisdom  to  dictate  .  .  .  ." 
Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  113,  114,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Wm.  Cooper,  for  Boston  Committee  of  Correspondence,  to  Newburyport 
Committee  of  Correspondence,  January  1773,  rough  draft:  "The  notice  you  have 
been  pleased  to  take  of  our  endeavors  to  serve  our  country;  the  strong,  senten- 
tious manner  in  which  you  have  expressed  your  resolution  to  co-operate  with  us, 
for  the  redress  of  our  intolerable  Grievances  add  much  to  our  encouragement. 
Thus  connected  with  each  other  in  sentiment,  in  common  affection,  in  common 
interest  and  common  danger,  we  must  speedily  convince  those  who  conspire  our 
ruin  that  so  united  we  shall  baffle  all  their  machinations."  Revolutionary  Cor- 
resp., Bancroft  Collection,  I.,  667.  Cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  1017.  Even  the  Colrain  com- 
mittee could  write,  August  8,  1774,  to  the  Boston  committee :  "  Nine  tenths  of 
the  County  of  Hampshire :  &  Berkshire,  will  stand  by  you.  even  with  Life  & 
fortune."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  263,  Bancroft  Collection.  But  the  in- 
terception of  letters  in  some  cases  delayed  prompt  co-operation.  Cf.  Ibid.,  III., 
161. 


G O  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA  CH USE TTS  gy 

vreight  throughout  the  province ;  they  secured  as  well  in 
each  town  a  body  whose  function  it  became  to  promote, 
vigorously  if  need  be,  uniformity  in  the  rule  of  action  sug- 
gested by  the  committee  of  the  capital.1 

As  suggested,  the  local  committee  was  at  first  one  simply 
of  correspondence.  Its  organization  was  the  direct  result  of 
the  action  of  the  Boston  meeting,  which  had  deliberated  in 
an  atmosphere  surcharged  with  excitement  caused  by  the 
transactions  concerning  the  tea.  The  directness  of  the  ap- 
peal was  so  answered  and  the  hazard  of  the  political  risks 
presented  was  met  in  such  a  manner,  that  a  fair  view  of  the 
situation  need  give  scant  allowance  to  the  slight  deviation 
from  absolute  unanimity  throughout  the  population.  At  the 
same  time,  however,  the  step  thus  taken  was  justifiable  not 
only  from  the  point  of  view  of  policy,  but  also  from  that  of 
legality.  Each  town,  or  district,  in  the  regular  meeting  of 
its  freemen  possessed  of  town  privileges,  duly  elected  such  a 
committee  in  the  course  of  its  ordinary  procedure.  By 
these,  in  each  instance,  might  be  sent  to  Boston  information 
concerning  military  and  administrative  affairs,  upon  the  de- 
gree of  partisanship  of  the  minority,  upon  the  general  polit- 
ical feeling  in  the  town  or  district ;  and  by  them,  as  well, 
might  be  sent  appeals  for  direction,  information  and  assist- 
ance. The  time  was  distinctly  one  of  exigencies,  and  to 
provide  for  promptly  and  firmly  meeting  these  nothing 
could  serve  better  than  such  a  number  of  small  local  com- 
mittees, possessing  ample  knowledge  of  the  provincial  situa- 
tion, acting  upon  practically  identical  lines  of  policy  and 
with  similar  objects  and  methods,  and,  furthermore,  so  con- 
stituted and  endorsed  as  to  be  able,  and  to  feel  free,  to  turn 
their  energy  to  any  line  of  legitimate  political  action  which 

1  Cf.  Joseph  Warren,  Boston,  August  29,  1774,  to  S.  Adams,  Philadelphia: 
"  I  am  constantly  busied  in  helping  forward  the  political  Machines  in  all  Parts  of 
this  Province."     Autograph  Letters  of  Joseph  Warren,  Bancroft  Collection. 


£8  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [98 

might  be  necessary.  They  might  check  the  plans  of  the 
administration  or  restrain  sympathizers  with  it  among  the 
minority  of  the  population,  or  do  whatever  else  seemed  ad- 
visable for  the  furtherance  of  the  plans  and  political  welfare 
of  the  colonists. 

While  various  disconnected  efforts  at  co-operation  within 
the  province  had  been  made  earlier,  the  effort  which  resulted 
most  successfully,  and  which  was  connected  most  closely 
with  the  transitional  period,  was  naturally  that  made  in  the 
fall  of  1772;  so  that  from  the  end  of  that  year  it  must  be 
understood  that  the  province  maintained  throughout  its  ex- 
tent a  local  organization  so  constituted  as  to  be  always  ready 
for  prompt  and  effective  action,  so  created  as  to  attain  the 
sanction  of  legality,  and  composed  of  men  of  such  positive 
beliefs  and  capacity  for  direct  action  as  to  be  always  ready, 
for  the  common  cause,  to  countenance,  and  even  to  promote, 
acts  that  were  beyond  the  sphere  of  legality  and  that  were 
plainly  of  a  revolutionary  character. 

It  was  unavoidable  that  such  local  bodies,  suddenly  organ- 
ized and  as  suddenly  confronted  with  the  serious  task  of  the 
control  of  the  minority,  should  be  impelled  to  successive  acts 
of  questionable  propriety.  Intimidation  was  in  their  eyes 
wholly  justifiable,  and  it  therefore  became,  of  necessity,  very 
common.  The  committees,  planned  for  distributing  in- 
telligence concerning  the  infraction  and  maintenance  of 
"  chartered  rights,"  became  organs  of  forcible  political 
propagandism.  The  effect  of  their  work  often  showed  itself 
in  injuries  to  person,  violations  of  property,  and  infringe- 
ments of  the  liberty  of  those  who  might  in  politics  choose  to 
differ  with  the  party  of  "  movement."  The  functions  thus 
originally  of  correspondence  and  publication,  became  so  ex- 
panded as  to  make  the  committee  the  virtually  uncontrolled 
engine  of  a  political  party,  created  for  the  purpose  of  making 
that  party  supreme,  and  restrained  from  no  acts  which  might 
assist  toward  that  end. 


99]  G  °  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  no 

As  the  revolution  advanced,  the  activity  of  the  executive 
committees  became  differentiated.  While  in  some  cases  the 
same  committee  was  empowered  to  undertake  specified  and 
distinct  lines  of  action,  in  other  cases  there  appeared  an  ad- 
ditional committee,  characterized,  for  instance,  as  that  of  in- 
spection, or  of  observation.1  To  the  care  of  committees  of 
the  latter  class  was  entrusted  an  extensive  but  ill-defined 
group  of  activities  including  all  matters  in  any  wise  political, 
as  well  as  personal  conduct,  trade  relations,  property  rights, 
local  security,  public  finance,  the  administrative  method  of 
local  officials,  and  the  conformity  of  the  population  to  the 
recommendations  of  the  county  and  provincial  bodies  of 
town  delegates  and  of  the  continental  body  of  provincial 
delegates.  And  whether  these  local  committees  directed 
their  energy  against  "  regrators,"  against  "  addressers,"  or 
against  "  non-jurors;"  whether  they  ordered  the  disciplining 
of  a  royal  sheriff,  the  closing  of  a  royal  court,  or  the  expul- 
sion of  a  stiff  necked  loyalist;  whether  they  accomplished 
the  seizure  of  weapons  held  by  the  disaffected,  or  prompted 
the  enlistment  of  volunteers,  or  promoted  the  gathering  of 
supplies  for  the  distressed  Bostonians,  their  work  commands 
attention  not  simply  because  the  results  of  their  efforts  were 
so  great,  but  especially  because  the  creation,  work,  and 
customary  attitude  of  such  bodies  made  it  possible  that  the 
people  of  the  province,  although  renouncing  the  most  im- 
portant parts  of  their  provincial  government  and  acting 
virtually  as  revolutionists,  should  be  able  to  confine  them- 
selves to  what  they  considered  perfect  propriety  of  action, 
should  be  able  to  limit  the  acts  of  all  within  certain  bounds, 

1  By  virtue  of  the  house  resolution  of  February  13,  1776,  a  consolidation  was 
effected,  and  each  town  thereafter  was  to  choose  annually  a  committee  of  corre- 
spondence, inspection,  and  safety.  4  American  Archives,  IV.,  1447.  An 
original  print  of  this  resolution,  signed  by  the  speaker,  deputy  secretary,  and 
fifteen  members  of  the  council,  is  in  Haivley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 
cf.  Journal  of  House  of  Representatives. 


I  oo  FK  OM  PR  0  VINCI AL   TO  COMMON  WEALTH  [j  0o 

and  should  be  able,  furthermore,  to  enter  upon  the  colonial 
revolt  with  an  organization  which  for  all  purposes  of  practical 
politics — and  other  purposes  then  had  little  scope — was  com- 
plete. When  viewed  after  the  lapse  of  twelve  decades,  the 
effect  of  the  greater  part  of  the  local  activity  is  seen  to  have 
been  of  a  nature  then  not  commonly  understood.  The 
"publication"  of  a  political  dissenter  was  an  act  in  itself  of 
ordinary  occurrence,  but  the  fact  that  the  "publication"  ex- 
pressed the  conviction  and  the  opinion  of  a  thoroughly  or- 
ganized population,  was  a  fact  of  fundamental  importance. 

This  organization  of  effort  in  the  towns  and  districts, 
prompted  both  by  the  Provincial  Congress  and  by  the  Con- 
tinental Congress,  did  not  reach  its  height  until  the  end  of 
1774,  or  shortly  thereafter;  and  by  that  time  such  work  had 
been  strongly  supplemented  by  the  action  of  county  confer- 
ences or  conventions,  bodies  outside  the  cognizance  of  the 
provincial  law,  and  endeavoring,  as  did  the  smaller  divisions, 
to  enforce  popular  unity  of  action  and  belief,  yet  differing 
from  those  in  taking  a  more  positive  course  and  in  con- 
sciously aiming  at  the  creation  of  new  forms  of  government 
upon  the  premise  of  new  statehood. 

Many  of  the  local  bodies,  which  were  largely  of  a 
provisional  character,  seem  to  have  had  no  appar- 
ently close  connection  with  the  general  transitional  move- 
ment. Likewise,  some  of  the  unusual  or  extra-constitutional 
arrangements  present  in  themselves  no  indication  that  they 
might  have  had  any  important  effect  upon  the  constitutional 
changes  then  in  progress.  Very  much,  thus,  of  the  manifold 
political  activity  already  suggested  was  important  not  so 
much  for  the  rendering  of  positive  assistance  toward  the  ends 
in  view,  as  for  the  prevention  of  much  which  would  have 
made  the  attainment  of  those  ends  far  more  difficult.  The 
preservation  of  local  order,  the  protest  against  political  usur- 
pation, the  development  of  a  political  unity  in  the  population, 


I  o  i  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  !  Q  r 

and  many  other  steps,  are  important  elements  in  the  early- 
stages  of  a  revolution.  Yet  ultimate  success  demands  that 
the  significance  and  effect  of  these  preliminary  steps  should 
be  embodied  in  some  positive  creation  that,  in  essence  at 
least,  shall  be  permanent.  Such  embodiment,  as  will  be 
seen,  was  attempted  by  the  Provincial  Congress,  and  by  the 
action  of  the  towns  preceding  the  formation  of  that  larger 
body.  Under  the  same  category  falls  much  of  the  activity 
of  the  county  conventions  during  the  crowded  months  of 
August  and  September,  1774.  Other  such  bodies,1  to  be 
sure,  had  earlier  taken  action  concerning  commercial  and 
political  affairs,  as  non-consumption  agreements  and  parlia- 
mentary taxation;2  and  thereafter  such  bodies  were  to  take 
important  action  upon  the  state  of  the  provincial  currency, 
upon  the  demoralization  of  prices,3  and,  in  certain  instances, 
upon  constitutional  propositions;4  but  at  no  period  did  the 
activity  of  these   bodies  generally  bear  with  such  directness 

1  There  were,  as  well,  throughout  the  period,  many  conferences  not  strictly 
county  conventions,  called  usually  for  some  specific  purpose.  Thus,  members  of 
the  committees  of  Boston,  Roxbury,  Dorchester,  Watertown,  Charlestown,  Cam- 
bridge, "  Mistick,"  Dedham,  Milton,  Maiden,  Braintree,  Woburn,  and  Stow,  met 
at  Boston,  September  27,  1774,  and  took  action  against  supplying  the  British 
troops  with  labor  and  certain  supplies.  The  resolutions  were  issued  on  a  small 
hand-bill.  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  77-S0,  Bancroft  Collection.  Cf.  Ibid., 
III.,  89,  105,  197. 

2  Thus,  a  convention  of  sixty  delegates  from  towns  in  Berkshire  county  was  held 
at  Stockbridge,  July  6,  1774.  The  proceedings  are  given  in  Jotimal  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress,  652-655.  I  find  their  proceedings  and  covenant  printed  also 
in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1006,  July  25,  1774.  The  proceedings  are  also  in  Revolu- 
tionary Corresp.,  III.,  149-154,  Bancroft  Collection.  Cf.  Holland,  Western 
Massachusetts,  I.,  206-208. 

3  Cf.  Plymouth  county  convention,  May  21,  1777.  Massachusetts  Spy,  no.  321, 
June  27,  1777.  An  important  series  of  congresses,  both  county  and  provincial, 
was  held  to  take  action  on  prices  and  the  currency. 

4  Of  such  activity,  Essex  county  furnishes  an  especially  good  example.  Wor- 
cester county  held  a  typical  convention  November  16,  1776,  of  which  the  pro- 
ceedings are  printed  in  5  American  Archives,  III.,  866,  867,  and  of  which  I  find 
a  record  in  Massachusetts  Spy,  no.  292,  December  4,  1776. 


I02  FROM  PROVINCIAL    TO  COMMONWEALTH  [IQ2 

upon  the  political  needs  and  upon  the  organization  of  a  pro- 
visional government  as  in  the  two  months  indicated. 

Even  as  early  as  August  9  some  fifty-two  delegates,  re- 
presenting more  than  a  score  of  towns  and  districts  in  Wor- 
cester county,  met  at  the  house  of  "  Mrs.  Mary  Sternes,  inn- 
holder,"  in  the  town  of  Worcester.  An  ambitious  effort  was 
made  by  them  to  express  their  sentiments  to  the  Massachu- 
setts men  soon  to  attend  the  Continental  Congress.1  With 
reference  to  local  needs,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  "  the  acts, 
annihilating  our  once  free  constitution,  are  actually  authenti- 
cated," they  ask  the  towns  still  unrepresented  to  join  in  the 
effort  to  make  the  action  of  the  convention  truly  representa- 
tive of  the  entire  county.  They,  furthermore,  adopted 
unanimously,  and  for  distribution,  a  series  of  resolutions,  be- 
ginning, as  was  common  at  that  period,  with  a  profession  of 
true  allegiance  to  King  George.  This,  however,  was  coupled 
with  a  denial  of  the  jurisdiction  of  parliament  over  the  col- 
onies, and  was  followed  by  a  condemnation  of  the  effort  of 
parliament  to  tax  the  colonists  and  to  alter  a  provincial 
charter.  The  exclusive  right  to  originate  local  law  was 
claimed  for  the  colonists  ;  attention  was  given  to  the  sup- 
porters of  Gage ;  and  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  delegates 
upon  still  another  matter,  that  a  non-consumption  agreement, 
"  if  strictly  adhered  to,  will  greatly  prevent  extravagance, 
save  our  money,  encourage  our  own  manufactures,  and  re- 
form our  manners."2 

'An  address,  "  Humbly  intemating  as  our  opinion  some  few  measures  neces- 
sary to  be  adopted  by  the  Congress,  which  address  was  delivered  as  those  Gentle- 
men passed  through  this  Town."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  Si 9,  Bancroft 
Collection. 

2  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  630. 

On  August  19,  1774,  Thomas  Young,  at  Boston,  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams,  at 
Philadelphia:  "  Worcester  has  had  a  County  meeting  and  have  sent  us  their  re- 
solves which  I  this  day  committed  to  Messrs.  Fleet  for  publication.  They  wrote 
us  to  convene  the  Boston  Committee  on  the  26th  current,  and  invite  Middlesex 
to  meet  us,  at  which  time  they  proposed  to  attend  by  a  Committee  from  Wor- 


I03]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  I03 

In  the  case  of  certain  counties  the  convention  was  an  event 
quite  isolated  in  the  history  of  the  locality.  In  other 
counties  the  convention  was  something  more  than  a  single 
meeting  or  convention.  There  it  attained  varying  degrees 
of  permanence,  although  its  existence  could  in  no  case  be 
prolonged  beyond  the  period  of  its  utility.  Thus,  the  Wor- 
cester convention  already  mentioned  adjourned,  not  sine  die, 
but  to  a  stated  time.  Accordingly,  on  August  30,  the 
county  convention  reassembled,  comprising  representatives 
of  every  town  and  district  in  the  county,1  the  local  delega- 
tions consisting,  as  before,  mainly  of  the  local  committees  of 
correspondence,  of  whom  "there  were  present  one  hundred 
and  thirty  members,  together  with  a  number  of  delegates  and 
gentlemen  from  several  towns."2  By  this  body,  on  August 
31,  vigorous  resolutions  were  adopted  tending  to  the  disab- 
ling of  the  royal  judiciary ;  an  earnest  plea  was  made  for  the 
maintenance  of  order,  inasmuch  as  "  the  dark  and  gloomy 
aspect  of  our  public  affairs  has  thrown  this  province  into 
great  convulsions;"  and  it  was  recommended  that  "fit"  per- 
sons be  sent  to  a  provincial  convention  "  to  devise  proper 
ways  and  means  to  resume  our  original  mode  of  goverment, 
.  ;  or  some  other  which  may  appear  to  them  best  cal- 
culated to  regain  and  secure  our  violated  rights."3  It  was 
also  voted  that  town-meetings  should  be  held  in  the  usual 

cester.  We  have  agreed  to  their  proposal,  and  also  invited  Salem  and  Marble- 
haad  so  that  we  expect  four  County's  Committees  to  meet  and  conclude  on 
proper  steps  to  be  taken  respecting  the  executive  Courts."  Adams  Papers,  Ban- 
croft Collection.  The  Worcester  letter,  dated  August  15,  asked  a  conference  in 
order  that  a  plan  with  reference  to  the  courts,  etc.,  might  be  formed,  "  that  will 
easily  be  adopted  by  the  Counties  of  Suffolk  Middlesex  and  Worcester  which  in 
all  probability  will  run  through  the  Province."  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  819, 
Bancroft  Collection.     Cf.  Ibid„  III.,  821. 

1  yournal  0/  the  Provincial  Congress,  631. 

""Ibid.,  631. 

*  Ibid.,  633.  Cf.  Mass.  Gazette  (Draper),  September  15,  1774;  Salem  Gazette, 
no.  15,  October  7,  1774;   4  American  Archives,  I.,  795-797. 


1 04  FR  OM  PR  O  VINCIAL   T  O  COMMON  WE  A  LTH         '  [  1 04 

manner,  and  that  the  towns  should  retain  the  money  due  to 
the  provincial  treasury  "till  public  traquillity  be  restored, 
and  more  confidence  can  be  reposed  in  the  first  magistrate 
and  his  council."1 

At  a  further  session  of  these  committees  and  delegates,  held 
September  6,  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Timothy  Bigelow,  action 
was  taken  with  reference  to  the  closing  of  the  royal  courts, 
and  that  with  immediate  effect.  At  a  still  later  session,  on 
September  21,  an  address  to  Governor  Gage  was  adopted,2 
steps  were  taken  for  the  military  organization  of  the  county, 
and  a  county  committee  of  correspondence  was  created,3 
with  the  duty,  in  part,  "  to  prepare  matter  to  lay  before  this 
body  at  their  several  meetings ;  to  give  the  earliest  intel- 
ligence to  the  several  committees  of  any  new  attack  upon 
the  liberties  of  the  people,  and  call  a  county  congressional 
convention  at  any  time,  as  occasion  may  require."  One 
further  act  of  importance  was  the  recommendation  that  the 
representatives  to  the  approaching  General  Court  at  Salem 
should  be  instructed  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  provincial 
charter  as  interpreted  by  the  colonists,  and  that  they  should 
be  given  suitable  instructions  with  reference  to  the  possible 
meeting  of  a  Provincial  Congress. 

Also  in  August,  on  the  last  two  days  of  the  month,  there 
met  at  Concord  one  hundred  and  fifty  committeemen,  coming 
from  every  town  and  district  in  Middlesex  county.4     James 

1  Journal  0/ the  Provincial  Congress,  634. 

Certain  resolves  of  the  Worcester  county  convention,  of  August  29  to  September 
21,  1 774,  are  printed  in  the  Massachusetts  Gazette  and  Boston  Post  Boy,  no.  893,  Oc- 
tober 3,  1774;   and  in  the  Essex  Gazette,  nos.  323,  324,  October  4  and  II,  1774. 

'l  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  644,  645. 

3  Consisting  of  the  committees  of  correspondence  of  the  towns  of  Worcester 
and  Leicester,  and  of  Messrs.  Thomas  Denny,  Joseph  Henshaw,  and  Joshua 
Bigelow.     Ibid.,  643. 

4  The  proceedings  are  given  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  609-614. 
Cf  Boston  Evening  Post,  no.  2033,  September  12,  1774;   4  American  Archives, 

I.,  750-753;  Mass.  Gazette  (Draper),  September  15,  1774;  Essex  Journal,  no. 
39,  September  14,  1774;   Essex  Gazette,  no.  320,  September  6-13,  1774. 


I05]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  IOc 

Prescott  presided,  and  the  principal  work  was  incorporated 
in  a  report  of  the  committee,  adopted  by  a  vote  of  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-six  to  four,  asserting  their  allegiance  to  their 
"  gracious  sovereign,"  and,  with  reference  to  the  charter,  the 
courts,  and  the  Provincial  Congress,  assuming  a  position 
similar  to  that  already  taken  in  Worcester.  The  alteration 
of  the  jury  system  was  said  to  be  "  not  only  an  evident  in- 
fraction upon  our  charter,  but  a  subversion  of  our  common 
rights  as  Englishmen."*  The  right  of  every  people  to  meet, 
to  petition,  and  to  use  every  legal  method  for  the  removal 
of  their  common  grievances,  was  asserted  ;  and  they  insisted 
that  any  act  which  should  prohibit  such  meetings  "  cuts 
away  the  scaffolding  of  English  freedom,  and  reduces  us  to 
a  most  abject  state  of  vassalage  and  slavery."  Resolves  of 
less  special  significance  were  adopted ;  and  all  was  based 
upon  such  premises  as  this,  that  by  the  act  of  parliament 
"  the  fountains  of  justice  are  fatally  corrupted."  In  such 
situation,  they  say:  "Our  defence  must,  therefore,  be  im- 
mediate in  proportion  to  the  suddenness  of  the  attack,  and 
vigorous  in  proportion  to  the  danger."  It  was  ordered  that 
a  copy  of  the  convention's  proceedings  should  be  sent  to 
the  Continental  Congress  and  to  the  clerk  of  each  town  in 
the  county;  and  thereupon  the  convention  voted  its  own 
dissolution. 

On  the  following  Tuesday,  September  6,  two  other  county 
conventions  met,  one  at  Dedham,  the  other  at  Ipswich.  At 
the  latter  delegates  gathered  from  every  town  in  Essex 
county,  and  in  the  course  of  a  two  days'  session  a  series  of 
resolves,  "  after  being  read  several  times,  debated  on,  and 
amended,  were  unanimously  accepted,  the  delegates,  one  by 
one,  declaring  their  assent."1     These  dealt  with  the  adminis- 

1  Sixty-eight  delegates  were  present.  The  proceedings  are  printed  in  Journal 
of  the  Provincial  Congress,  615-618.  The  resolves  of  this  convention  are  in  the 
Boston  Evening  Post,  no.  2034,  September  19,  1774. 

On  the  origin  of   this  convention,  see,  for  example,  the  vote  of  Ipswich,  of 


1 06  FR OM  PR 0 VINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEAL TH  \\Q>6 

trative  and  constitutional  problems  already  indicated,  and 
added  little  to  the  current  expression  on  those  questions.  As 
to  the  continuance  of  the  county  convention,  the  members 
took  a  novel  step  in  empowering  the  members  from  two 
towns,  Salem  and  Marblehead,  to  call  another  meeting  of  the 
delegates  whenever  they  should  think  it  necessary. 

The  convention  which  assembled  at  Dedham,  September 
6,  and  which  continued  its  session  at  Milton,  September  9, 
expressed  for  Suffolk  county  vigorous  opinions  concerning 
the  points  of  controversy  then  familiar.1  They  repeated,  in 
language  more  blunt  than  any  used  before  and  in  terms 
which  made  this  convention  somewhat  famous,  the  prevalent 
opinion  that  the  three  acts  of  parliament  in  question  should 
not  be  obeyed.  The  condition  of  affairs  at  Boston  prompted 
the  demand  that  freedom  of  communication  should  be 
allowed  between  Boston  and  the  outlying  districts.  To  this 
address  Gage  returned  an  empty  answer  void  of  assurance. 
The  committee  in  charge,2  desiring  not  to  be  placed  in  a  false 

August  29,  1774,  Lincoln  Papers.  Also,  as  to  the  vote  of  Marblehead,  of  August 
15,  1774,  to  which  the  vote  of  Ipswich  refers,  see  Roads,  History  of  Marblehead, 
104.  For  the  proceedings,  Cf.  Mass.  Gazelle  (Draper),  September  22,  1774; 
Salem  Gazelle,  vol.  I.,  no.  12,  September   16,  1774. 

1  Its  proceedings  are  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  601-609.  The 
resolutions  appear  in  Boston  Evening  Post,  no.  2034,  September  19,  1774.  These 
were  printed,  with  the  resolution  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  September  17, 
1774,  in  the  Connecticut  Courant,  no.  509,  September  26,  1774.  The  resolutions 
of  the  county  convention  are  also  in  Teele,  History  of  Milton,  425-429.  Cf. 
Boston  Evening  Post,  nos.  2034,  2037,  September  19,  October  10,  1774;  Connecti- 
cut Journa I,  no.  362,  September  23,  1774;  Salem  Gazette,  October  14,  1774; 
4  American  Archives,  I.,  776-779,  901-903. 

The  preliminary  county  conference  of  Suffolk  was  held  at  Col.  Doty's  inn, 
Stoughton,  August  16.  An  invitation  to  attend,  extended  by  the  committees  of 
Dorchester,  Roxbury,  Milton,  and  Brookline,  is  in  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III., 
627,  Bancroft  Collection.  In  a  letter  of  August  21,  1774,  Joseph  Warren  men- 
tioned "  the  County  Meeting  which  depend  upon  it  will  will  [sic]  have  very  im- 
portant Consequences."  Autograph  Letters  of  Joseph  Warren,  Bancroft  Collec- 
tion. 

2  Including  Joseph  Warren,  Benjamin  Church,  Joseph  Palmer,  and  William 
Heath. 


1 07]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  T 0j 

light  by  specious  questions  proposed  by  Gage  in  his 
response,  sent  him  a  further  address  in  which  they  aimed  to 
"justify  the  proceedings  for  which  your  excellency  seems  to 
be  at  a  loss  to  account."  They  insisted  "that  no  wish  of  in- 
dependence, no  adverse  sentiments  or  designs  towards  his 
majesty  or  his  troops  now  here,"  actuated  the  men  they  rep- 
resented, as  they  repeated,  as  their  only  request,  that  the 
commander  should  desist  from  the  work  of  fortifying  Boston, 
that  the  entrance  into  the  town  might  remain  "  as  nature  has 
formed  it."  Such  an  address  Gage  refused  to  receive  "  in 
form,"  and  the  committee  imitated  the  convention  by  dis- 
solving, prefacing  the  step  by  the  resolution  "  that  they  had 
executed  the  commission  entrusted  to  them  by  the  county, 
to  the  utmost  of  their  ability." 

Scarcely  a  week  after  Warren's  committee  gave  up  its 
effort  to  reach  an  understanding,  thirty-six  men  representing 
nine  constituencies  in  Cumberland  county  met  at  the  house 
of  Mrs.  Greele,  in  Falmouth.1  Their  first  day,  September 
21,  was  occupied  in  taking  action  concerning  the  request  of 
-"  the  body  of  the  people,  who  were  assembled  at  the  entrance 
of  the  town,"  and  in  requiring  the  attendance  of  the  sheriff 
in  order  that  they  might  determine  his  position  with  reference 
to  the  recent  acts  of  parliament.  He  agreed  to  an  appro- 
priate declaration;  this,  under  escort  of  the  convention,  he 
read  "  to  the  people,  which  they  voted  to  be  satisfactory, 
and  after  refreshing  themselves,  returned  peaceably  to  their 
homes."  On  the  following  day,  a  series  of  resolutions  was 
unanimously  adopted  describing  at  large  the  attitude  already 
defined,  and  including  both  a  clause  in  favor  of  the  encourage- 
ment of  manufacturers  and  an  appeal  that  "  every  one 
should   do   his    utmost  to  discourage  lawsuits,  and  likewise 

'The  proceedings  are  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  655-660.  The 
resolutions  and  list  of  delegates  were  printed  in  the  Essex  Gazelle,  no.  323, 
October  4,  1774.     The  resolutions  are  in  4  American  Archives,  I.,  798-802. 


108  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [I08 

compromise  disputes  .  .  .,"  and  that  every  one,  furthermore, 
should  endeavor  "  to  suppress,  at  all  times,  riots,  mobs,  and 
all  licentiousness,  and  that  our  fellow  subjects  would  consider 
themselves,  as  they  always  are,  in  the  presence  of  the  great 
God,  who  loveth  order,  not  confusion." 

On  the  day  when  this  convention  at  Falmouth  dissolved, 
committeemen  from  nearly  all  the  towns  and  districts  of 
Hampshire  county'  met  at  Northampton,  and  in  a  two  days' 
session  announced  their  resolve  to  co-operate  on  the  new 
lines  of  action.  The  proposal  by  the  Middlesex  convention 
of  a  Provincial  Congress  was  expressly  endorsed  by  the  as- 
sembly at  Northampton.  The  attitude  of  this  body  on 
another  matter  was  excellently  stated  when,  to  all  those 
towns  which  might  elect  representatives  by  virtue  of  Gage's 
writ,  they  suggested  that  it  should  be  carefully  considered 
"  whether  any  such  representatives  can  do  any  one  act  in 
concert  with  his  excellency  Thomas  Gage,  Esq.,  and  his 
mandamus  council,  without  an  implied  acknowledgment  of 
the  authority  and  force  of  the  above-said  acts  of  parliament." 

During  the  following  week  two  further  county  conventions 
were  held.  That  of  September  26  and  27  was  an  ample 
representation  of  Plymouth  county,  and  by  it  were  passed 
emphatic  resolves  bearing  on  the  policies  already  indicated.2 
More  simple,  although  of  similar  purport,  were  the  resolu- 

1  The  proceedings  are  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  618-621.  The 
list  of  delegates  is  given.  Charlemont  and  Southwick  were  not  represented. 
Hadley  and  Amherst  each  chose  three  delegates;  Judd,  History  of  Hadley,  406, 
420.  The  proceedings  were  printed  in  the  Boston  Evening  Post,  no.  2037, 
October  10,  1774. 

2  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  621-625.  Fifty-two  delegates  repre- 
sented the  fourteen  towns  of  the  county.  The  session  of  September  26  was  at 
Plympton,  of  September  27  at  Plymouth.  The  resolutions  were  printed  in  the 
Massachusetts  Spy,  no.  193,  October  13,  1774,  and  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  no. 
1017,  October  10,  1774.  Cf.  Mass.  Gazette  (Draper),  October  13,  1774;  Salem 
Gazette,  no.  16,  October  14,  1774;  Boston  Evening  Post,  no.  2037,  October  10, 
1774- 


109]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  IOn 

tions    adopted   by  the   delegates   of   several   Bristol   county 
towns  who  on  September  28  and  29  met  at  Taunton.1 

Throughout  practically  the  entire  province,  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  people  of  the  towns  were  thus  brought  to- 
gether for  united  action  in  their  respective  counties.2  Each 
county,  with  unimportant  exceptions,  became  possessed  of  a 
definite  political  organization,  in  some  cases  temporary  and 
in  all  extra-constitutional,  but  vigorously  used  and  well 
adapted  for  the  immediate  attainment  of  certain  political  ob- 
jects which  then  were  clearly  understood.3  These  were  re- 
peatedly expressed  by  town-meetings  and  endorsed  by 
county  conventions,  and  their  feasibility  was  demonstrated 
by  the  gathering  of  the  first  Provincial  Congress  in  the  week 
after  the  Bristol  convention  had  met  at  Taunton.  By  that 
step  the  provisional  organization  was  so  developed  as  to  co- 
incide in  its  range  of  influence  with  the  organization  earlier 
maintained  under  the  provincial  charter.  It  was  a  simple 
thing  for  the  leaders  of  neighboring  towns,  even  of  an  entire 
county,  to  meet  for  conference  and  for  the  expression,  in 
large  degree  authoritative,  of  their  political  beliefs  and  pur- 
poses. Such  a  step,  however,  unless  carrying  some  endorse- 
ment of  weight  or  significance,  would  not  appear  especially 

1  Proceedings  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  626,  627.  Eleven  towns 
were  represented.  The  resolutions  appeared  in  the  Mass.  Spy,  October  6,  1 774, 
and  have  been  reprinted  in  Quarter  Millennial  of  Taunton,  395—397. 

a  Even  as  to  Barnstable  county,  cf  letter  of  Chatham  committee  to  Boston 
committee,  Nov.  1,  1774;  postscript:  "Liberty  Gains  Ground  Considerable  we 
have  Got  a  County  Congress  and  are  to  Set  ye  16th  Currant  Notwithstanding  all 
oppersition  and  it  is  Said  that  Even  Harwich  are  about  it."  Revolutionary 
Corresp.,  III.,  243,  Bancroft  Collection.  Cf  Resolutions  of  York  county, 
November  16,  1774:  4  American  Archives,  I.,  983-985. 

3 "Speculator"  admits  the  legality  of  committees  of  correspondence  as  town 
officers,  but  criticises  the  county  conventions,  although  of  the  latter  he  says : 
"  When  the  powers  of  government  in  this  State  were  suspended  by  the  enemies 
of  our  peace,  such  political  manoeuvres  were  necessary,  and  tended  greatly  to  the 
salvation  of  America;  .  .  .  ."  Boston  Gazette,  no.  11 14,  September  23,  1776. 
This  article  I  have  found  to  be  reprinted  in  5  American  Archives,  II.,  339. 


II0  FR  OM  PR  O  VINCI  A  L  TO  COMMONWEAL  TH  \\\o 

serious  to  the  administration.  Nevertheless,  the  similar 
gathering  of  delegates  of  all  towns  in  a  body  representative 
practically  of  the  entire  province,  while  attended  with  far 
greater  difficulty,  was  no  new  thing  in  the  politics  of  Massa- 
chusetts.1 It  was  a  move,  furthermore,  certain,  if  successful, 
to   present  a  difficult  problem  to  the  home  government. 

The  experiment  was  successfully  tried,  and  the  English 
authorities,  finding  a  province,  which  had  hitherto  been  loyal, 
now  fully  organized  and  being  driven  beyond  recall  along 
the  path  of  revolt,  resorted  to  the  arbitrament  of  arms  and  to 
political  seduction.  The  one  course  was  a  failure,  the  other 
an  anomaly;  and  virtual  recognition  of  the  de  facto  govern- 
ment of  the  provincial  territory  was  hastened  both  by  the 
ineffective  course  of  the  royal  government  and  by  the  readi- 
ness and  ability  of  the  provisional  organization  to  assume 
the  character  and  perform  the  functions  commonly  belong- 
ing to  a  recognized  government.  With  it  the  royal  governor 
treated  ;  to  it  he  and  those  he  represented  surrendered  the 
control  of  the  royal  province ;  by  it  were  speedily  assumed 
all  those  duties  and  privileges  which  made  it  the  head  of  the 
only  government  that,  existing  on  the  territory  of  the  earlier 
province,  was  recognized  either  by  the  inhabitants  therein  or 
by  any  power  in  those  parts  of  the  continent  which  even 
then  were  establishing  new  governmental  arrangements 
typical,  as  well  as  indicative,  of  a  new  nationality. 

Still  more  evident  did  the  position  occupied  by  the  pro- 
vincial government  become  when  the  outbreak  of  hostilities 
made  the  problem  one  of  military  science  as  well  as  of 
politics,  when  there  was  shown  the  plain  necessity  of  some 
such  directing  force,  and  when  the  opportunities  for  the 
exertion  of  its  power  became  numerous  and  important. 
Then  it  was  that  the  true  effect  and  significance  of  all  this 
preparation  by  detailed  and  harmonious  organization  was 
1  Cf.  The  conventions  of  1689  and  1768. 


Hi]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  C II  USE  ITS  l  l  x 

made  plain.  In  the  time  of  actual  crisis  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  were  able  to  act  calmly  and  consistently,  as 
well  as  unitedly.  Strong  enough  to  overcome  internal  dis- 
sension, they  were  able  also  to  present  outwardly  a  solid 
front.  Their  political  solidity  in  the  months  when  such  was  re- 
quisite was  a  guarantee  of  success,  and,  if  appreciated,  made  it 
evident  that  the  essential  elements  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment were  not  simply  military ;  neither  was  it  wholly  a 
national  movement,  but  such  that  its  character  was  most 
clearly  revealed  in  local  or  provincial  transitions  even  if 
they  embraced  few  events  so  thrilling  as  to  appeal  strongly 
to  the  patriotic  impulse.  The  earlier  status  was  wholly 
provincial ;  the  occasion  and  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution 
were  purely  local ;  provincial  power  was  the  basis,  and 
subsequent  commonwealth  individualism  was  the  destruc- 
tion, of  the  first  national  government;  throughout  the  period 
local  rights  and  power  found  ready  assertion  except  when 
smothered  in  the  exigencies  which  made  nationalism  a 
piety  and  a  necessity ;  throughout  those  years,  as  well, 
the  province,  and  later  the  commonwealth,  has  always  to  be 
considered  as  a  force  concurrent,  in  all  affairs  of  revolution, 
with  the  Continental  Congress,  and  rendering  to  that  body 
such  assistance  toward  making  the  continent  a  unit  as  had 
been  rendered  to  the  central  body  of  the  province  by  the 
various  town  committees  and  county  committees  and  county 
conventions.  These,  in  the  time  of  crisis,  averted  the  weak- 
ness of  anarchy  and  discord,  and  gave  to  Massachusetts 
such  unity,  strength,  and  regularity  of  organization  as  as- 
sured either  success  without  remorse  or  failure  without 
regret. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE    PROVINCIAL   CONGRESS 


§  I.   General  Review 

The  circumstances  attending  the  disappearance  of  the 
royal  legislature  were  for  the  colonists  especially  fortunate. 
The  dissolution  of  that  body  harmonized  with  the  plan  of 
the  more  progressive  faction '  and  offered  an  excellent  op- 
portunity for  readily  completing  the  program  which  already 
had  been  proposed  and  even  begun.  Local  disorganization 
had  been  in  large  measure  prevented  by  the  maintenance  of 
town  governments  ;  the  possibilities  of  general  and  consistent 
action  had  been  increased  by  the  work  of  the  several 
county  conventions ;  and  now  the  effectiveness  of  the  many 
local  efforts  at  organization  and  opposition  was  to  be  greatly 
increased.  This  was  to  be  secured  by  the  creation  of  a 
governing  body  representative  of  all  the  towns  in  the  prov- 
ince and  invested  with  power  sufficient  to  perform  all  those 
necessary  functions  the  suspension  of  which  had  been  oc- 
casioned by,  or  had  helped  to  occasion,  the  fall  of  the  royal 
government  in  the  province.  The  colonists  having  attained 
the  political  ends  desired,  it  was  essential  to  final  success 
that  they  should  avoid  the  disorganization  naturally  incident 
to  the  overthrow  of  a  provincial  government.  Such  unfor- 
tunate result  they  did  avoid  by  the  formation,  as  a  tempo- 
rary expedient,  of  this  single  representative  body,  which  for 
the  time  being  was  recognized  as  possessing,  with  certain 

1  Even  so  early  as  June  1774,  it  had  been  said  :  "  We  will  have  a  Congress  at 
Concord."     Cf.  Winsor,  History  of  Duxbury,  125. 

112  |"112 


I  i  3]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  T  1  3 

limitations,  the  supremacy  in  executive  and  judicial,  as  well 
as  in  legislative  affairs.  The  towns,  the  constituencies  of  the 
members  of  this  central  body,  continued  to  claim  and  actively 
to  exercise  certain  important  rights,  so  that  in  the  Massa- 
chusetts Congress  it  was  quite  impossible  to  develop  such  a 
type  of  dictatorship  as  is  shown  in  the  similar  bodies  in  cer- 
tain other  provinces.  Nevertheless,  the  Provincial  Congress 
of  Massachusetts  assumed  functions  of  sufficiently  broad 
scope  to  effect  successfully,  and  at  the  same  time  in  a  con- 
servative manner,  a  transition  to  a  more  definitely  organized 
form  of  government. 

The  theory  of  the  situation  excluded  strict  consideration 
of  legality,1  for,  as  Thomas  Young  wrote,  "  the  Laws  of  God, 
of  Nature  and  Nations  oblige  us  to  cast  about  for  safety."3 
While  the  elastic  "  law  of  nature,"  however,  might  put  wholly 
out  of  consideration  the  legal  relations  subsisting  between 
the  province  and  the  home  government,  it  was  not  by  acts 
interpreted  as  destroying  the  binding  force  of  obligations 
and  relations  within  the  province;3  so  that,  while  looking 
at  the  situation  from  one  point  of    view,  there  appears  to 

1  Cf.  Joseph  Hawley's  "Broken  Hints:"  "The  people  will  have  some  govern- 
ment or  other .  .  .    ;    legislation  and  executive  justice  must  go  on  in  some 

form  or  other,  and  we  may  depend  on  it  they  will;  .  .  .  ."  Niles,  Prin- 
ciples and  Acts,  325. 

Cf.  Letter  by  "  Junius  Americanus,"  addressed  to  Gen.  Gage :  "  You  charge 
the  inhabitants  of  Massachusetts  Bay  with  subverting  their  charter,  by  assembling 
in  an  illegal  and  unconstitutional  manner.  In  this  step,  Sir,  they  have  been 
obliged  from  the  tyranny  of  laws  to  the  liberty  of  nature."  Reprinted  from  the 
Pennsylvania  Journal  in  New  York  Journal,  no.  1664,  November,  1774. 

Cf.  Vote  of  West  Springfield,  April  II,  1775:  "That  the  delegates  be  in- 
structed to  dissent  from  any  proposal  that  may  be  made  for  setting  up  any  form 
of  civil  government  differing  from  that  obtained  in  the  Charter  we  hold  under 
William  and  Mary,  excepting  where  the  Laws  of  Self-preservation  (which  super- 
sede all  others)  necessarily  require  it."     Lincoln  Papers. 

2 Thomas  Young,  Boston,  September  4,  1774,  to  S.  Adams,  Philadelphia. 
Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

3  Cf.  B.  H.  Hall,  History  of  Eastern  Vermont,  256. 


II4  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [II4 

have  been  a  complete  disregard  of  law,  from  another  point 
of  view  there  appears  a  scrupulous  observance  of  all  such 
elements  of  law  and  propriety  as  could  render  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  revolutionists  more  effective  and  impart  to  them 
a  clearer  justification.  The  steps  in  the  creation  of  a  revo- 
lutionary body  were  as  orderly  and  as  near  a  semblance  of 
legality  as  was  possible;1  a  provincial  representation  was 
suggested  by  the  committee  of  one  county ;  the  time  and 
place  of  meeting  were  proposed  by  the  convention  of  another 
county ;  and  the  movement  was  at  once  endorsed  by  those 
more  permanent  bodies,  the  town-meetings.  These,  with 
remarkable  uniformity,  empowered  their  representatives,  on 
the  occasion  of  the  anticipated  break  with  the  executive,  to 
resolve  themselves  into  a  Provincial  Congress.  Such,  as  has 
been  seen,2  was  done,  and  even  more.  The  election  of  re- 
presentatives with  these  unusual  powers  had  been  often  ac- 
companied by  the  election  of  additional  delegates  to  act 
simply  in  the  Provincial  Congress  at  the  time  and  place 
agreed.  The  revolutionary  body  was  thus,  numerically, 
much   more    fully  representative  than   the   legal    legislature 

'Some  local  writers  take  an  extreme  position.  Referring  to  October  4,  1774: 
'The  vote  of  the  assembly,  therefore, — all  the  members  of  which  had  been  legally 
elected  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  charter,  and  under  the  call  of  the  Gov- 
ernor,— must  be  considered  the  legitimate  act  of  the  province,  in  the  only  way  in 
which  the  province  could  express  its  pleasure."  A.  C.  Goodell,  Jr.,  in  Essex 
Institute  Historical  Collections,  XIII.,  31,  32. 

2  "  As  it  was  not  thought  prudent  to  assume  all  the  powers  of  an  organized 
government,  they  chose  a  president,  and  acted  as  a  provincial  congress,  as  pre- 
viously proposed."     Warren,  History  of  American  Revolution,  I.,  163. 

Letter  to  Berkshire  county,  Sept.  24,  1774  [from  Boston  committee]  :  "We 
.  .  .  forward  you  a  Copy  of  the  Proceedings  of  this  &  the  Neighbouring 
Countys  wherein  we  are  univerally  of  Opinion  that  'tis  best  to  send  as  many 
Representatives  as  the  Charter  &  Province  Laws  allow  &  them  to  instruct  not  to 
dissolve  themselves  but  to  form  a  provinciall  Congress  there  to  consult  &  execute 
Measures  that  concern  the  internall  Government  of  ye  Province,  .  .  .  ."  Revo- 
lutionary Corresp.,  III.,  159,  Bancroft  Collection. 


I  1 5 ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  !  l  r 

would  have  been.1  The  resolving  of  a  body  of  anomalous 
representatives  into  a  Provincial  Congress  at  Salem  was 
followed  by  a  prompt  adjournment  to  Concord2  and  by  the 
merging  there  on  the  appointed  date,  October  1 1,  of  the  two 
sets  of  delegates  into  a  body  which  for  almost  ten  months 
was  to  direct  the  common  affairs  of  the  province. 

The  Congress  which  thus  met  was  in  more  than  numbers 
thoroughly  representative.  It  was  the  direct  organ  of  the 
towns,  composed  of  responsible  delegates  acting  under  the 
direction  of  their  respective  towns.  It  was,  as  well,  a  body 
which  had  the  recognition  and  support  of  practically  the  en- 
tire population.3  Thus,  in  a  letter  already  quoted,  an  active 
worker  had  written  :  "  I  have  not  heard  a  single  individual 
object  to  a  Provincial  Congress,  nor  is  it  likely  any  objection 
will  be  made  to  any  conclusions  which  may  be  formed 
there."4  So,  in  fact,  it  was;  then  was  shown  the  vigor  of 
public  opinion  and  the  force  of  its  endorsement.  Otherwise 
it  would  have  been  impossible  for  this  body  to  take  the  posi- 
tion in  which  it  "  conducted  the  affairs  of  the  colony   as   if 

^he  Massachusetts  Spy,  of  October  13,  1774,  states  that  there  were  90  dele- 
gates present,  October  5.  The  same  paper,  in  its  issue  of  October  20,  states  that 
on  October  14  more  than  260  delegates  were  present.  And  also  cf.  Austin,  Life 
of  Gerry,  I.,  58.  Bradford,  History  of  Massachusetts,  245,  incorrectly  states 
that  there  were  288  delegates  at  Salem,  October  7.  "The  whole  number  of 
members  was  288;    .  .  .  ."     Shattuck,  History  of  Concord,  91. 

8 "  ye  Members  convened  at  Salem,  after  having  passed  a  Resolve  or  two  for 
reprehending  this  Measure  of  ye  ignorant  General,  adjourned  to  Concord  for  ye 
Convenience  of  meeting  Members  added  to  the  ye  Provincial  Congress  as  will 
appear  by  ye  papers;  .  .  .  ."  E.  Gerry,  Boston,  October  15,  1774,  to  S.Adams, 
Philadelphia.     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

3 Although,  cf.  Athol  committee,  July  20,  1774,  to  Boston  committee:  "We 
greatly  Lement  that  their  are  so  great  a  number  amonngst  ourselves  that  Join  in 
the  Conspiracy  to  overthrow  our  Excelent  Constitution  and  to  introduce  a  tirani- 
cal  and  arbitary  Goverment."  Pevolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  140,  Bancroft  Col- 
lection. 

4  Thomas  Young,  Boston,  September  4,  1774,  to  S.  Adams,  Philadelphia. 
Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 


n6  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [u6 

they  had  been  regularly  invested  with  all  the  powers  of  gov- 
ernment;"  and  in  such  a  manner  that  their  recommendations, 
as  has  been  accurately  stated,  "  were  respected  as  sacred 
laws."1  To  be  sure,  these  men  had  "  no  justification  for 
convening  by  any  provisions  of  the  provincial  charter,"2  and 
they  recognized  the  situation ;  they  countenanced  a  revo- 
lution, but  presumably  they  aimed  at  what  they  considered 
the  best  interests  of  their  sovereign;  they  were  eager  to 
save  the  province  from  impending  anarchy,  and  in  the  effort 
they  rendered  impossible  both  the  ruin  of  anarchy  and  the 
misrule  of  monarchy.  When  the  first  Provincial  Congress 
began  its  sessions,  royal  rule  in  Massachusetts  was  very 
limited  both  as  to  territory  and  as  to  functions ;  its  contin- 
uance was  possible,  although  problematical.  When  the  last 
Provincial  Congress  was  dissolved,  royal  rule  in  Massachu- 
setts was  practically  impossible ;  the  difficulties  attending 
it  had  for  twelve  months  been  increasing,  and  had  by  events 
been  given  a  significant  emphasis. 

The  body  in  whose  control  now  rested  the  affairs  of  Mas- 
sachusetts effected  at  Concord  a  formal  organization3  by  the 
election  of  those  officers  who  at  Salem  had  been  provision- 
ally chosen ;  and  they  at  once  placed  in  the  hands  of  fifteen 
leaders,  termed  the  "  committee  to  take  into  consideration 
the  state  of  the  province,"4  the  practical  direction  of  future 

1  John  Marshall,  History  of  the  Colonies  planted  by  the  English  on  .  .  .  North 
America,  424. 

3  J.  T.  Austin,  Life  of  Elbridge  Gerry,  I.,  52,  53. 

3  The  distribution  of  the  members  among  counties  was  as  follows :  Middlesex, 
75;  Worcester,  56;  Hampshire,  39;  Suffolk,  34;  Essex,  27;  Plymouth,  18; 
Bristol,  16;  Barnstable,  8;  Berkshire,  7;  York,  6;  Cumberland,  5;  Dukes,  2; 
Lincoln,  o;   Nantucket,  o. 

4 The  committee  included  Hancock,  Hawley,  Gerry,  Ward,  and  the  two  Warrens. 
Jour?ial  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  16,  17.  On  November  23,  others  were 
added,  including  the  members  of  the  recent  Continental  Congress  then  in  the 
Provincial  Congress.  Ibid.,  49.  On  December  5,  John  Adams  was  added. 
Ibid.,  58. 


I  i  7]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  T  j  7 

events.  The  Congress  itself  proceeded  forthwith  to  the 
exercise  of  such  powers  as  the  welfare  of  the  people  was 
supposed  to  demand,  and  of  such  powers  as  were  deemed 
ample  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  people  and  the 
security  of  political  society  during  this  strictly  transitional 
period  between  the  end  of  the  king's  government  and  the 
organization  of  a  new  government  on  a  definite  basis.  It 
was  natural  that  such  a  body  should  carry  fully  as  much 
weight  with  its  constituents  as  had  the  preceding  one  of 
June;1  in  each  case  the  elections  had  been  conducted  on  the 
same  basis  and  with  equal  regard  to  statutory  forms;2  in  the 
procedure  of  the  bodies  the  difference  was  such  only  as  was 
necessitated  by  the  absence  of  an  executive  and  the  lack  of 
a  bicameral  arrangement  in  the  legislature.  To  the  colonist, 
thus,  the  Congress  differed  from  an  assembly  only  in  those 
points  wherein  the  results  of  the  administration  plan  were 
seen ;  for  such  violence  to  the  provincial  forms  of  govern- 
ment the  colonist  considered  himself  in  no  manner  respon- 
sible ;  he  attempted,  by  his  expressions,3  to  throw  the  bur- 
den of  responsibility  upon  his  adversary;  he  attempted 
further,  by  his  acts,  to  show  the  sincerity  of  those  expressions, 
to  make  them  tangible,  and  to  save  himself.4 

1  Lecky  says :  "  It  was  obeyed  as  if  it  had  been  a  regular  branch  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  it  proceeded  to  organize  the  revolution."  But  he  recognizes  no  at- 
tempt at  a  legal  session  of  the  General  Court.  History  of  England  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  III.,  419,  420. 

2  Stedman,  War  in  America,  I.,  108,  calls  this  body  a  "  self-constituted  con- 
gress." 

3  Later,  April  19,  18x3,  John  Adams  wrote  to  E.  Gerry:  "  Why  was  the  au- 
thority of  Massachusetts,  which  enacted  the  law  in  all  the  forms  of  the  constitu- 
tion by  their  charter,  called  a  convention?  It  was  the  general  court,  the  regular 
legal  constitutional  legislature  of  the  province,  the  crown  governour  having  abdi- 
cated."    J.  T.  Austin,  Life  of  Elbridge  Gerry,  I.,  515. 

*  A  very  unusual  vote  was  that  of  South  Brimfield,  January  17,  1775,  to  the 
effect  that  they  were  not  acquainted  with  the  Provincial  Congress  and  could  not 
pledge  adherence  to  all  its  acts;   but  that  they  would  observe  the  "  principles  of 


H8  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [H8 

The  possibility  of  such  salvation  for  the  colonist  now- 
rested  with  the  course  of  the  delegates  in  the  Provincial 
Congress.  In  their  first  session,  which  ended  October  14, 
they  adopted  an1  address  to  General  Gage  in  which  they 
treated  of  the  attitude  of  the  public,  discussed  military  af- 
fairs, and  laid  special  stress  upon  the  erection,  by  the  royal 
authorities,  of  works  of  defence  on  Boston  "  Neck."  Gage 
made  reply  on  October  17,  disclaiming  any  evil  purpose  in 
his  military  operations,  and  challenging  the  legality  of  the 
body  thus  distinctly :  "  It  is  my  duty,  therefore,  however  ir- 
regular your  application  is,  to  warn  you  of  the  rock  you  are 
upon,  and  to  require  you  to  desist  from  such  illegal  and  un- 
constitutional proceedings."2  On  the  same  day  he  writes  of 
this  message  as  one  "  which  I  had  some  difficulty  in  con- 
triving, as  I  cannot  consider  them  a  legal  Assembly,  and  a 
handle  would  have  been  made  of  it  had  I  refused  ;  and  it  was, 
moreover,  necessary  to  warn  them  of  their  conduct,  and  re- 
quire them  to  desist  from  such  unconstitutional  proceed- 
ings."3 He  avoided  giving  the  colonists  a  "  handle,"  but 
neither  his  statements  nor  those  of  the  Congress  could  do 
more  than  define  the  problem  and  intensify  the  divergence 
of  the  parties  involved. 

On  the  day  Gage  wrote  his  disclaimer  the  Congress  as- 
sembled at  Cambridge,  and  there  further  expressed  its  rela- 
tion to  the  interests  of  royalty.  By  a  resolution  of  October 
21  it  was  provided  that  all  persons  holding  commissions 
under  the  forms  recently  prescribed  by  parliament,  should  be 

English  Liberty  "  and  would  give  regard  to  the  advice  of  the  Provincial  Congress, 
"  as  far  as  agrees  with  our  former  Provincial  Charter."     Lincoln  Papers. 

'October  13,  1774;  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  17,  18.  This  is 
printed  in  Niles,  Principles  and  Acts,  297,  298. 

On  October  1 1  there  were  260  present  and  only  one  dissenting  voice  in  the 
votes  on  this  matter.     Boston  Gazette,  no.  1018,  October  17,  1774. 

*  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  21. 

aTo  Lord  Dartmouth.     4  American  Archives,  I.,  SSo. 


119]  G ° VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  lig 

given  ten  days  in  which  to  publish  an  acknowledgment  of 
their  former  misconduct  and  a  renunciation  of  their  commis- 
sions, or  to  be  "  published  "  and  treated  as  rebels.1  The 
defiance  of  parliament  was  unequivocal ;  the  entire  royal 
civil  list  was  to  go  the  way  of  the  mandamus  council.  That 
the  plan  of  action  thus  indicated  was  endorsed  by  a  sincere 
and  sober  purpose,  was  soon  made  evident.  The  advan- 
tages accruing  from  checking,  if  not  completely  stopping, 
royal  administration,  were  to  be  enhanced  by  the  creation  of 
a  similar  official  body  recognizing  only  the  authority  of  the 
people  as  expressed  by  their  Provincial  Congress.  The 
movement  was  illustrated  by  the  early  action  of  the  Congress 
in  electing  Henry  Gardner  receiver-general,2  and  in  author- 
izing him  to  receive  from  the  several  collectors  the  money 
held  by  them  on  the  account  of  the  province.  At  the  same 
time  they  advised  the  towns  to  direct  their  financial  officers 
holding  public  money  to  pay  the  same  at  once  to  Gardner, 
engaging  that  such  payments  should  operate  as  a  complete 
release  of  the  collectors  from  all  subsequent  claims  relative 
to  the  legality  of  this  action.  It  was  also  recommended  that 
the  sheriffs  as  well  should  make  payments  to  Gardner.3  The 
general  recognition  of  the  new  financial  officer  by  the  towns4 
whence,  and  by  the  subordinates  through  whom,  the  money 
came,  gave  to  the  colonists  one  element  of  strength  thor- 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  25.  Cf.  Ibid.,  51,  52,  56,  60,  61,  94,  96, 
1 1 1-113,236,  249,  344. 

2  Ibid.,  36-38.     Cf  Ibid.,  61,  65,  66,  113,  114,  146,  207,  234. 
8  Ibid,  38,  39. 

'£.  g.:  Marblehead,  January  2-10,  1775,  Essex  Gazette,  no.  338,  January  17, 
1775 ;  Plymouth,  December  29,  1774,  January  3,  1775,  Essex  Gazette,  no.  339, 
January  24,  1775;  Falmouth,  January  3,  1775,  ibid.  Sutton,  January  5,  1775, 
Benedict  and  Tracy,  History  of  Sutton,  92;  Oxford,  April  17,  1775,  Daniels, 
History  of  Oxford,  128;  Concord,  November  21,  1774,  Shattuck,  History  of  Con- 
cord, 92. 


I2o  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [I2o 

oughly  essential  to  their  success  in  a  strenuous  contest.1  To 
their  opponents  the  step  was  a  clear  sign  of  the  coming  de- 
velopments. It  foreshadowed  the  formation  of  a  government 
based  on  the  authority  of  the  people ;  and  even  if  a  denial  of 
the  king's  sovereignty  was  now  avoided,  this  action,  and 
others  like  it,  were  the  preliminaries  of  a  reorganization  of 
the  state.2  The  stake  was  great ;  for  the  men  of  the  conven- 
tion, and  for  their  friends  a  course  of  defiance  might  mean 
the  loss  of  all;  destruction,  at  least  political  destruction,  was 
even  then  in  their  path  ;  but  they  dared  to  presume  upon 
eventual  success,  and  to  act  upon  the  presumption;  and  in 
that  daring,  they  showed  the  reasonableness  of  Warren's  en- 
thusiasm, when  of  the  convention  he  had  written,  "You 
would  have  thought  yourself  in  an  Assembly  of  Spartans  or 
ancient  Romans,  had  you  been  a  witness  to  the  ardour  which 
inspired  those  who  spoke  upon  the  important  business  they 
were  transacting."3 

The  third  session  of  the  first  Provincial  Congress,  extend- 
ing from  October  ij  to  October  29,    1774,  was  marked   by 

1  November  iS,  1774,  King  George  wrote  to  Lord  North:  "...  the  New 
England  Governments  are  in  a  state  of  rebellion,  blows  must  decide  .  .  .  ." 
Donne,  Correspondence  of  George  III.  with  Lord  ATorth,  I.,  215. 

1  Cf.  Gage  to  Lord  Dartmouth,  October  3,  1774:  "They  are  shortly  to  have  a 
Provincial  Congress  in  this  Colony,  composed  chiefly  of  the  Representatives 
lately  chosen  to  meet  at  Concord,  where  it  is  supposed  measures  will  be  taken 
for  the  government  of  the  Province."  4  American  Archives,  I.,  815.  Gage  to 
Dartmouth,  September  20,  1774:  "They  talk  of  fixing  a  plan  of  Government  of 
their  own,  .  .  .  ."     Ibid.,  I.,  795. 

3  Jos.  Warren,  Boston,  November  21,  1774,  to  Josiah  Quincy,  Jr.  4  American 
Archives,  I.,  990.  In  the  same  letter  Warren  expresses  the  belief  that  the  recent 
dissolution  of  Parliament  and  the  receipt  of  favorable  letters  from  England  "  will 
induce  us  to  bear  the  inconvenience  of  living  without  Government  until  we  have 
some  further  intelligence  of  what  may  be  expected  from  Lnp/and.  It  will  re- 
quire, however,  a  very  masterly  policy  to  keep  the  Province  for  any  considerable 
time  longer  in  its  present  state."  He  further  states  that  Boston  is  by  far  the 
most  moderate  part  of  the  province.  The  letter  is  printed  in  Frothingham,  Life 
of  Joseph  IVarren,  394-396. 


I  2  i  ]  GO  VERNMEN T  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  !  2  i 

several  acts  of  a  general  and  preparatory  nature,  bearing 
especially  upon  the  commercial  and  administrative  relations 
with  Great  Britain,  and  pointing  naturally,  in  each  case,  to  a 
more  or  less  prompt  severance  of  those  connections.  A 
"  replication"  to  Gage's  reply  is  formed  at  the  close  of  the 
session;  and  in  this  they  endeavor  to  prove  "  that  while  the 
'  avowed  enemies '  of  Great  Britain  and  the  colonies,  are 
protected  by  your  excellency,  the  lives,  liberties,  and 
properties  of  the  province,  who  are  real  friends  to  the  British 
constitution,  are  greatly  endangered,  whilst  under  the  control 
of  your  standing  army."1  On  the  other  hand,  in  regard  to 
their  maintenance  of  the  charter,  they  hold  that  a  statement 
of  "  the  truth,  relative  to  this  matter,  must  be  a  full  vindi- 
cation of  our  conduct  therein."  They  assert  that  their  con- 
stituents "  have  been  compelled,  for  the  laudable  purposes 
of  preserving  the  constitution,  and  therein  their  freedom,  to 
obtain  the  wisdom  of  the  province  in  a  way  which  is  not  only 
justifiable  by  reason,  but,  under  the  present  exigencies  of  the 
state,  directed  by  the  principles  of  the  constitution  itself;"2 
and  for  their  justification  allude  to  English  precedent  at  the 
revolution  of  1689.  Having  taken  progressive  action  with 
reference  to  the  local  militia  organizations,  the  provincial 
treasurer,  and  the  Committee  of  Safety,  and  having  already  ap- 
pointed a  committee  "  to  sit  in  the  recess  of  this  congress,"3  an 
adjournment  was  taken  on  October  29  until  November  23. 

This  fourth  and  last  session  of  the  first  Congress,  like  that 
immediately  preceding,  was  held  at  Cambridge.  The  actual 
session  was  one  only  of  sixteen  days ;  in  other  connections 
have  been  indicated  the  principal  acts  therein.  By  a  special 
address  it  was  aimed  to  secure  the  helpful  influence  of  the 

1  October  29,  1774;    Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  43. 
3  Ibid.,  44. 

3 October  27,    1774;    the    committee    comprised    Messrs.   Hawley,   Hancock, 
Dexter,  Gerry,  Heath,  Foster,  and  James  Warren.     Ibid.,  35,  36. 


I22  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [I22 

clergy  in  behalf  of  the  resolutions  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress ;  attention  was  given  to  the  tory  town  of  Hardwick  and 
the  distasteful  "association"  of  Timothy  Ruggles  ;  *vhile  in 
acting  upon  a  memorial  from  the  Baptists  the  Congress  an- 
nounced that  its  members  considered  themselves  as  "  being 
by  no  means  vested  with  powers  of  civil  government, 
whereby  they  can  redress  the  grievances  of  any  person 
whatsoever,.  .  .  ."l  Before  dissolving,  this  Congress  adopted 
an  address  to  their  constituents,  which  was  ordered  to  be 
printed  in  all  the  Boston  newspapers  and  to  be  issued  in  a 
hand-bill  to  every  town  and  district  in  the  province.  This 
began  with  a  strong  characterization  of  the  time  when  they 
were  chosen  to  consult  on  matters  of  common  safety  and. 
defense  as  a  time  "  when  the  good  people  of  this  colony 
were  deprived  of  their  laws,  and  the  administration  of  justice, 
civil  and  criminal ;  when  the  cruel  oppressions  brought  on 
their  capital  had  stagnated  almost  all  their  commerce;  when 
a  standing  army  was  illegally  posted  among  us  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  enforcing  submission  to  a  system  of 
tyranny;  and  when  the  general  court  was,  with  the  same 
design,  prohibited  to  sit ;  .  .  .  ."2  They  early  inserted  the 
saving  qualification  that  they  still  had  "  confidence  in  the 
wisdom,  justice,  and  goodness  of  our  sovereign,  as  well  as 
the  integrity,  humanity  and  good  sense  of  the  nation; 
although  "  the  general  tenor  of  our  intelligence  from  Great 
Britain,  with  the  frequent  reinforcements  of  the  army  and 
navy  at  Boston,"  excited  "  the  strongest  jealousy  that  the 
system  of  colony  administration,  so  unfriendly  to  the  protes- 
tant  religion,  and  destructive  of  American  liberty,"  was  still 
to  be  pursued  and  attempted  with  force  to  be  carried  into 

1  December  9,  1774.     yournal  of the  Provincial  Congress,  67. 

!  December  10,  1774.  Ibid.,  69.  This  is  printed  in  Niles,  Principles  and 
Acts,  298-300,  under  date  of  December  4,  1774,  although  no  session  was  held  on 
that  day. 


1 2 3 ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA  CHUSE  TTS  !  2 3 

execution."  Even  so  they  urged  their  fellowmen  all  to  be 
"  solicitous,  that  no  disorderly  behavior,  nothing  unbecom- 
ing our  characters  as  Americans,  as  citizens,  and  christians, 
be  justly  chargeable  to  us."1  The  commercial  situation  and 
the  military  outlook  served  as  themes  of  encouragement; 
the  political  condition  of  England  was  indicated  ;  and  a  plea 
put  forth  for  undeviating  adherence  to  the  plans  of  the  Conti- 
nental and  Provincial  Congresses. 

In  connection  with  the  last  they  gave  a  view  of  the 
internal  relations  of  the  revolutionary  organizations,  when 
they  said  :  "  Your  Provincial  Congresses  ....  will  hold  up 
the  towns,  if  any  should  be  so  lost  as  not  to  act  their  parts, 
and  none  can  doubt  that  the  Continental  Congresses  will 
rectify  errors,  should  any  take  place  in  any  colony  through 
the  subtilty  of  our  enemies."2  The  equipment  and  disci- 
pline of  the  militia  were  emphasized,  and  their  conclusion 
offered  the  "  determination  to  stand  or  fall  with  the  liberties 
of  America,"  and  the  hope  that  "  this  injured  people  "  might 
be  "  reinstated  in  the  full  exercise  of  their  rights  without  the 
evils  and  devastations  of  a  civil  war."3  This  address,  it  was 
m  later  directed,  was  to  be  sent  to  each  local  committee  of  cor- 
respondence, or,  if  none  such  existed,  to  the  selectmen  of 
each  town  and  district ;  the  same  distribution  was  to  be  made 
of  a  report  presented  by  the  committee  on  the  state  of  the 
province,  and  accepted  the  same  day.  The  preamble 
alluded  to  the  "  fatal  experience  "  of  other  states  incident  to 
a  too  protracted  delegation  of  powers.  The  resolutions 
stated  that  the  adjournment  of  October  29  was  made  "  from 
a  due  consideration  of  the  present  exigencies  of  the  public 
affairs,  and  the  evident  necessity  of  farther  deliberation 
thereon."4  Such  a  condition  did  not  then  exist  to  sanction 
a  similar  step  and  theory  condemned  a  longer  continuance 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  70. 

'Hid.,  71.  *  Ibid.,  71,  72.  *  Ibid.,  73. 


/ 


I24  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [  I  24. 

of  the  present  Congress.  The  Congress,  therefore,  resolved 
upon  its  own  dissolution,  but  "  being  deeply  impressed  with 
a  sense  of  the  increasing  dangers  which  threatened  "  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of  this  province  with  total 
ruin,"  they  recognized  the  necessity  of  a  frequent  meeting 
of  a  provincial  assembly;  and  they  acted  accordingly.  It 
was  recommended  to  each  town  and  district  that  those  in 
each  who  were  qualified  by  provincial  law  to  vote  for  repre- 
sentatives in  the  General  Assembly  should  elect  as  many 
members  as  might  be  determined  by  such  constituencies, 
to  meet  in  a  Provincial  Congress  at  Cambridge  on  February 
1,  1775,  and  to  serve  therein  until  a  specified  day  in  the 
subsequent  May. 

The  function  of  this  second  Congress  was  indicated  as  be- 
ing "to  consult,  deliberate  and  resolve  upon  such  farther 
measures  as,  under  God,  shall  be  effectual  to  save  this  people 
from  impending  ruin,  and  to  secure  those  inestimable  liber- 
ties derived  to  us  from  our  ancestors,  and  which  it  is  our  duty 
to  preserve  for  posterity."1  Difficulty  during  the  intervening 
period  was  to  be  avoided  by  empowering  the  delegates  who 
should  be  chosen  by  five  towns2  near  Boston,  or  a  majority^ 
of  them,  to  call  the  Congress,  in  case  of  need,  to  meet  at  any 
other  place  and  at  an  earlier  date.  The  towns  were  urged 
so  to  instruct  their  delegates,  and  observance  of  such  in- 
structions was  recommended.  Having  thus  provided  for  the 
creation  of  the  body  which  was  to  succeed  itself,  and  thank- 
ing John  Hancock  for  his  "  constant  attendance  and  faithful 
services  as  president,"  the  first  Provincial  Congress  of  Massa- 
chusetts was,  on  December  10,  1774,  by  its  own  vote  dis- 
solved. 

The  second  Provincial  Congress  convened,  as  planned,  on 
February    1,    1775,  and  was   dissolved  May  29,  1775.     The 

1  "Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  73. 

2  Charlestown,  Cambridge,  Brookline,  Roxbury,  Dorchester.     Ibid.,  74. 


j 2 5 ]  GO VERNMEN T  IN  MA SSA CI  I USE TTS  l2r 

period  is  commonly  divided  into  four  sessions,1  virtually  into 
three,  and  is  marked  by  much  important  activity,  the  salient 
points  of  which  have  been  indicated  elsewhere  in  this  work. 
The  constitution  of  this  body,  it  will  be  seen,  was  similar  to 
that  of  its  predecessors  in  that  the  conditions  of  the  franchise 
were  the  same ;  in  each  case  the  qualifications  of  members, 
and  the  decision  thereon,  rested  entirely,  at  least  in  the  later 
case,  upon  the  decision  of  the  unit  of  representation.2  In 
•each  case  the  Congress  was  a  gathering  of  town  and  district 
delegations3  responsible  to  their  constituencies  and  acting 
upon  the  authority  of  such.  The  organization  of  the  second 
Congress  was  like  that  of  the  first.  John  Hancock  was 
unanimously  chosen  president  and  Benjamin  Lincoln  was 
again  appointed  secretary.4  Immediately,  as  in  the  preced- 
ing instance,  a  strong  committee  was  appointed  "  to  take  into 

'At  Cambridge,  February  i-February  16;  at  Concord,  March  22-April  15;  at 
Concord,  April  22;  at  Watertown,  April  22-May  29.  Journal  of  the  Provincial 
Congress,  75. 

'The  local  body  was  not  in  all  points  unrestricted.  Thus,  on  February  6,  1775, 
there  was  presented  a  petition  of  Abijah  Browne  and  others,  "setting  forth  the 
irregularity  of  the  choice  of  Jonas  Dix,  Esq.,  to  represent  the  town  of  Waltham 
-v.in  this  Congress,"  and  a  counter-petition  of  Leonard  Williams  and  others.  The 
Congress  resolved  "  that  in  case  the  averments  in  Browne's  petition  mentioned 
were  true,  they  are  not  sufficient  to  disqualify  Jonas  Dix,  Esq.,  member  from  Wal- 
tham, from  having  a  seat  in  this  Congress."     Ibid.,  86. 

An  illustration  of  the  relations  between  the  towns  and  Congress  is  shown  in  an 
unusual  manner  by  the  action  of  the  Congress,  1775,  when  it  was:  "Resolved, 
That  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Northfield  be  desired,  in  consideration  of  the 
bodily  indisposition  of  their  present  member,  Mr.  Ebenezer  Jones,  which  prevents 
his  attendance,  to  add  one  other  member  to  him  in  order  that  their  town  may  be 
represented  in  Congress,  who  are  very  desirous  that  the  wisdtim  of  the  province 
may  be  collected  at  this  critical  juncture  of  our  public  affairs."     Ibid.,  129. 

3  The  roll  of  the  second  Congress  gives  195  towns  and  districts  as  represented 
by  delegates,  whether  in  every  instance  present  or  not.  The  229  delegates  are 
distributed  among  the  counties,  as  follows:  Middlesex,  42;  Worcester,  40; 
Hampshire,  32;  Suffolk,  28;  Essex,  28;  Plymouth,  15;  Bristol,  12;  Berkshire, 
10;  York,  7;  Lincoln,  6;  Barnstable,  5;  Cumberland,  4;  Dukes,  o;  Nantucket,  o. 

*  Ibid.,  S4. 


!  2 6  FR OM  PR O  VINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEAL Til  [126 

consideration  the  state  and  circumstances  of  the  province."1 
Early  in  the  session  was  adopted  an  address  to  their  "friends 
and  fellow  sufferers,"  the  inhabitants  of  Massachusetts.  By 
this  the  circumstances  are  stated  to  be  such  that  "  resistance 
is  so  far  from  being  criminal,  that  it  becomes  the  Christian 
and  social  duty  of  each  individual."2  Gratitude  to  the  Al- 
mighty is  enjoined  "  for  his  having  placed  you  under  such  a 
form  of  government,  as,  when  duly  administered,  gives  the 
meanest  peasant  the  same  security  in  his  life  and  property, 
as  his  sovereign  has  in  his  crown."3  The  rights  of  property, 
the  theory  of  representation,  perversion  of  colonial  adminis- 
tration, and  imperial  tyranny  are  touched  upon.  "  Fleets, 
troops,  and  every  implement  of  war,  are  sent  into  the  prov- 
ince, with  apparent  design  to  wrest  from  you  that  freedom 
which  it  is  your  duty,  even  at  the  risk  of  your  lives,  to  hand 
inviolate  to  posterity."4  The  plans  of  the  Continental  and 
Provincial  Congress  were  heartily  endorsed.  Emphasis  was 
put  upon  the  need  of  greater  military  efficiency  and  re- 
sources and  upon  the  importance  of  an  immediate  improve- 
ment in  the  finances  of  the   province.5     The  conduct  of  the 

1  This  comprised  Messrs.  Hancock,  Hawley,  Cushing  of  Boston,  Adams,  James^, 
Warren,  Paine,  Pitts,  Holten,  Heath,  Gerrish,  Cushing  of  Scituate,  Ward,  and  * 
Gardner.     On  February  2,  Messrs.  Lee,  Orne,  Palmer,  Gerry,  Foster,  and  Bowers 
were  added.     Ibid.,  84.     On  March  22,  Messrs.  Lothrop  and  Dexter  were  added. 
Journal  of  (he  Provincial  Congress,  109.     On  April  7,  Dr.  Warren  and  Dr.  Church 
were  added.     Ibid.,  132. 

2  February  17,  1775,  Gov.  Gage  wrote  to  Lord  Dartmouth:  "If  this  Provincial 
Congress  is  not  to  be  deemed  a  rebellious  meeting,  surely  some  of  their  resolves 
are  rebellious,  though  they  affect  not  to  order,  but  only  to  recommend  measures 
to  the  people;    .  .  .  ."     New  York  Journal,  no.  1697,  Juty  J3»  I775- 

s  Ibid.,  91.  *  Ibid.,  92. 

5  E.g.,  the  Shelburn  committee,  May  1,  1775,  wrote  to  the  committee  at  North- 
ampton :  "As  to  our  Province  Money  The  Town's  Unanimously  Agreed  to  pay  it 
in  to  Henry  Gardner  Esqr  of  Stow  but  we  are  a  New  township  and  money  being 
Scarce  we  have  it  not  Collected  and  the  money  is  not  in  the  place  to  Collect  but 
we  would  Directly  Hire  it  if  we  knew  where  to  Git  it,  and  we  will  Do  all  we  Can 
to  Git  it."     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection.     On  May  10,  1775,  in  a 


\2f\  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  l2j 

people  was  commended  and  a  continuance  of  their  steadfast- 
ness was  shown  to  be  essential  to  their  escape  from  the 
"galling  yoke  of  despotism  .  .  ."  And  furthermore,  since 
"  subjects  generally  pay  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  land, 
to  avoid  the  penalty  that  accrues  on  breach  of  them,"  the 
Congress  expresses  to  its  constituencies  its  assurance  "  that, 
as  you  hitherto  have,  you  will  continue  still  strictly  to  adhere 
to  the  resolutions  of  your  several  congresses;    .  .   ."' 

It  was  in  the  first  session  of  this  Congress  that  intercolonial 
relations  were  put  on  a  more  definite  basis  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  unusually  able  committee  of  nine  "to  correspond 
with  the  neighboring  governments."2  On  the  same  day  the 
Congress  took  a  step  which  was  deemed  "  highly  and  pe- 
culiarly proper"  in  appointing  March  16  as  a  day  of  fasting 
and  prayer,  an  opportunity  which  should  be  taken  to  beg 
God's  "blessing  upon  the  labors  of  the  field,  upon  our 
merchandize,  fishery  and  manufactures,  and  upon  the  various 
means  used  to  recover  and  preserve  our  just  rights  and 
liberties;"  and  when  there  should  be  offered  the  further 
prayer  "  that  his  blessing  may  rest  upon  all  the  British  Em- 
pire, upon  George  the  Third,  our  rightful  king,  and  upon  all 
the  royal  family,  .  .  ."3  The  session  was  concluded  on  the 
same  day  by  the  appointment  of  Concord  as  the  place,  and 
March  22  as  the  date,  of  the  next  meeting,  by  the  removal 
from  the  members  of  the  injunction  of  secrecy,  and  by  the 
cautionary  authorization  of  the  delegates  of  five  towns  to 
call  the  Congress  at  an  earlier  date,  if  necessary,  although  at 
no   other   than   the    appointed    place.      Conformity   to   such 

letter  to  Mr.  Sedgwick,  Joseph  Hawley  spoke  of  "ye  Shocking  backwardness. 
of  ye  Towns  to  pay  their  Taxes  .  .   .  ."     Ibid.,  II.  Cf.  Manchester  Records,  II., 
147,  as  to  December,  1774.      Cf.  Jameson,  Amherst  Records,  67.      Cf.  Revolu- 
tionary   Corresp.,  III.,  515,  Bancroft   Collection.  Cf.  Boston    Town   Records 
XVIII.,  222. 

1  jfournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  93. 

2  February  16,  1775;   Ibid.,  105,  106.  '  Ibid.,  107. 


128  FR  °M  PR  O  I VXC TIL   TO  COMMONWEAL  Til  \\2% 

possible  procedure  was  merely  recommended  by  the  Con- 
gress ;  the  emergency,  however,  did  not  arise. 

The  second  session  of  the  second  Provincial  Congress  be- 
gan at  the  appointed  time,  and  at  once  a  warning  was  issued 
against  relaxation  in  the  work  of  defence  and  military  pre- 
paration.1 Relatively  little,  however,  was  accomplished  in 
the  early  days,  so  that  on  April  I  the  attendance  of  members 
was  enjoined  and  two  days  thereafter  two  committees  were 
appointed,  one  to  report  a  resolution  to  summon  the  mem- 
bers from  the  counties  of  Hampshire,  Berkshire,  Worcester, 
and  Bristol,  the  other  to  report  a  resolution  to  be  inserted  in 
the  Salem  papers  requiring  the  attendance  of  all  the  absent 
members,  and  "  a  recommendation  to  the  several  towns  and 
districts,  who  have  not  yet  sent  members  to  the  Provincial 
Congress,  that  they  elect  them,  and  direct  their  immediate 
attendance."2  Within  a  week  more  than  one  hundred  mem- 
bers were  in  attendance,  so  that  it  became  possible  to  trans- 
act with  a  fairly  representative  body  a  reasonable  amount  of 
effective  business.3  On  April  15,  however,  an  adjournment4 
was  taken  to  May  10,  and,  as  formerly,  the  delegates  of  the 
five  towns  near  Boston  were  empowered,  in  case  of  need,  to 
summon  the  members  to  Concord  at  an  earlier  day.5 

The  wisdom  of  the  precaution  was  at  this  time  made 
manifest.     The  apprehensions  of  an  early  crisis  developed  so 

1  Journal  of the  Provincial  Congress,  no.  2  Ibid.,  117. 

3  In  Frothingham,  Life  of  Joseph  Warren,  445,  is  reprinted  from  the  Salem 
Gazette,  a  resolution  of  April  3,  1775,  not  in  the  journal  of  the  Congress,  alluding 
to  the  absence  of  several  members  on  leave  and  to  the  recent  receipt  of  import- 
ant intelligence  from  England,  and  directing  the  prompt  attendance  of  all  mem- 
bers, "  that  so  the  wisdom  of  the  province  may  be  collected." 

4  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  146. 

5  77/i?  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1044,  April  17,  1775,  contained  the  following  in  large 
type:  "The  Provincial  Congress  adjourn'd  last  Saturday  Afternoon,  to  the  10th 
Day  of  May  next;  but  if  necessary,  to  meet  earlier.  And  we  have  it  from  un- 
doubted Authority,  that  a  perfect  Unanimity  prevail'd  in  all  the  important  Meas- 
ures and  Deliberations  which  came  before  them." 


129]  G °  VERNMEN T  IN  MA SSA  CH USE TTS  l2g 

quickly  and  so  acutely,  immediately  after  the  adjournment, 
that  on  April  181  a  meeting  was  held  of  members  of  the  five 
delegations  and  by  their  authority  a  call,  signed  by  Richard 
Devens  of  Charlestown,  was  sent  to  the  members  of  the  Con- 
gress, insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  a  meeting,  and  request- 
ing their  immediate  attendance  at  Concord,  "as  the  closest 
deliberation,  and  the  collected  wisdom  of  the  people,  at  this 
alarming  crisis,  are  indispensably  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  the  country."2  Accordingly,  sessions  were  suddenly  re- 
sumed on  April  22,  when  after  a  short  morning  meeting  at 
Concord,  under  Richard  Devens,  as  chairman,  the  Congress 
adjourned  to  Watertown,  where  it  took  up  its  labors  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  same  day.  On  the  next  day,  Sunday,  Dr. 
Joseph  Warren  was  elected  president,  pro  tent.,3  proceedings 
were  pushed  with  vigor  and  thoroughness  under  the  impetus 
of  the  affair  at  Lexington,  and  one  week  after  that  event 
there   were   adopted    a   letter   to    Benjamin    Franklin,    their 

'On  April  16,  1775,  Gov.  Gage  wrote  to  Gov.  Martin,  of  South  Carolina: 
"This  Province  has  some  time  been  and  now  is  in  the  new  tangled  legislature 
termed  a  Provincial  Congress,  who  seem  to  have  taken  the  Government  into  their 
hands.  What  they  intend  to  do  I  cannot  pretend  to  say,  but  they  are  much 
puzzled  how  to  act.  Fear  in  some,  and  want  of  inclination  in  others,  will  be  a 
great  bar  to  their  coming  to  extremities,  .  .  .  ."  Journals  of  the  Provincial 
Congress  of  New  Yor/c,  I.,  57. 

2  Ibid.,  147. 

3 Ibid.,  149;  on  April  24,  Rev.  Mr.  Murray  was  "appointed"  president  pro 
tern.  Ibid,  150.  On  May  2,  Mr.  Murray  being  absent,  it  was  resolved,  "That 
another  president  be  chosen  pro  tempore,  and  that  he  be  chosen  by  nomination." 
Col.  James  Warren  was  chosen,  and  a  committee  sent  to  notify  him;  he  attended 
and  offered  reasons  for  an  excuse,  which  were  accepted.  The  peculiar  process 
then  adopted  was  the  passage  of  a  motion  to  appoint  a  committee  "  to  wait  on 
Doct.  Joseph  Warren,  informing  him  of  the  absence  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Murray,  who 
has  lately  officiated  as  president  of  this  Congress,  and  to  know  of  Doct.  Warren 
if  he  can  now  attend  the  Congress  in  that  station."  Warren  began  his  duties  in 
this  position  on  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day.     Ibid.,  178. 

"  The  congress  of  our  colonv  could  not  observe  so  much  virtue  and  greatness 
without  honoring  it  with  the  greatest  mark  in  their  favor;  .  .  .  ."  Oration  by 
Perez  Morton,  on  Joseph  Warren,  April  S,  1776.     Niles,  Principles  and  Acts,  61. 


!30  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [^q 

agent  at  London,  and  an  address  to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain.  The  former  enclosed,  for  publication  and  distribu- 
tion, several  papers,  relative  to  the  event  of  April  19.  The 
letter  itself  bore  an  allusion  to  "  both  Englands,"  to  which 
was  the  sequel  "that  whatever  price  our  brethren  in  the  one, 
may  be  pleased  to  put  on  their  constitutional  liberties,  we 
are  authorized  to  assure  you,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
other,  with  the  greatest  unanimity,  are  inflexibly  resolved 
to  sell  theirs  only  at  the  price  of  their  lives."1  The  address 
to  the  English  was  largely  an  account  of  the  conflict  on 
April  19,  and  of  those  acts  which  they  termed  the  "marks 
of  ministerial  vengeance  againt  this  colony,  for  refusing,  with 
her  sister  colonies,  submission  to  slavery;"  and  even  these, 
they  affirmed,  had  not  yet  detached  them  from  their  king. 
The  appeal  to  sentiment  was  followed,  in  conclusion,  by  the 
expression  of  the  hope  that,  "in  a  constitutional  connection 
with  the  mother  country,  we  shall  be  altogether  a  free  and 
happy  people."2 

The  session  under  review  effected  an  advance  in  the  pro- 
cedure of  the  Congress  by  the  adoption  of  a  series  of  ten 
rules  governing  the  conduct  of  the  meetings.  Six  were 
chiefly  rules  of  the  floor.  Of  the  others,  one  rule  provided 
that  no  person  should  nominate  more  than  one  person  for  a 
committee,  provided  the  person  so  nominated  be  chosen ; 
another,  that  no  member  should  be  obliged  to  serve  upon 
more  than  two  committees  at  a  time,  or  to  be  chairman  of 
more  than  one  committee  ;  and  still  a  further  rule  was  that  no 
vote  should  be  reconsidered  when  there  were  fewer  in  Con- 
gress than  when  it  was  passed.  A  most  important  rule  was 
that  no  grant  "  for  money  or  other  thing  shall  be  made,  un- 
less there  be  a  time  before  assigned  for  that  purpose."3  The 
Congress  thus  was  slow  in  perfecting  even  its  temporary  or- 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  154. 

*  Ibid.,  156.  "Ibid.,  164. 


!  3  I  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  l->l 

ganization ;  it  was  equally  tardy  in  placing  the  province  in  a 
position  of  security  or,  at  least,  of  defence.  The  situation,  as 
well  as  the  spirit  of  the  leaders,  was  shown  in  a  letter  of 
April  28,  1775,  from  the  Congress  to  Governor  Hopkins,  of 
Rhode  Island.  "  We  beg  leave,"  they  say,  "  to  suggest  to 
you  the  critical  situation  of  this  colony  at  the  present  time, 
which  disables  this  Congress  from  immediately  seizing  every 
crown  officer  in  the  government.  Boston  is  closed,  .  .  . 
Several  of  our  seaports  are  blockaded  with  ships,  and  threat- 
ened destruction  if  they  join  the  army.  .  .  .  Should  we, 
therefore,  seize  the  crown  officers  as  proposed,  it  may  hurl 
on  our  numerous  sea  ports  sudden  destruction,  before  they 
have  had  opportunity  of  saving  themselves."1 

Amid  such  distress  and  uncertainty  the  Congress  prepared 
for  its  own  dissolution.  The  date  of  that  had,  in  the  act 
creating  the  Congress,  been  fixed  as  not  later  than  May  30. 
As  "the  exigencies  of  our  public  affairs  render  it  absolutely 
necessary,  for  the  safety  of  this  colony,  that  a  new  Congress 
be  elected,"  it  was  resolved,  on  May  5,  that  the  towns  and 
districts  should  elect  delegates  to  meet  in  Provincial  Congress 
at  Watertown  on  May  3 1 .  The  size  of  delegations  was  left, 
as  before,  indeterminate  ;  the  franchise  again  was  based  on 
the  provincial  law ;  and  the  duration  of  the  approaching 
Congress  was  limited  to  six  months.2  The  second  Congress 
was  dissolved  May  2c;.3  Two  days  thereafter  began  the 
sessions  of  the  third  Provincial  Congress,4  a  body  in  all  re- 

1  yonrnal  of the  Provincial  Congress,  1 66.  ''■Ibid.,  195,  196. 

3  The  records  of  the  last  eight  days  of  this  session  are  not  extant.     Cf.  ibid.,  248. 

4  The  size  of  this  body  and  distribution  by  counties  was  as  follows :  Worcester, 

38  towns,  39  delegates;  Hampshire,  t,t>  towns,  40  delegates;  Middlesex,  33  towns, 

39  delegates;  Essex,  20  towns,  30  delegates;  Suffolk,  18  towns,  27  delegates; 
Plymouth,  13  towns,  17  delegates;  Bristol,  12  towns,  17  delegates;  Berkshire,  n 
towns,  10  delegates;  Barnstable,  9  towns,  n  delegates;  York,  5  towns,  5  dele- 
gates; Cumberland,  5  towns,  4  delegates;  Lincoln,  5  towns,  4  delegates;  Dukes, 
2  towns,  2  delegates;  Nantucket,  no  representation.  Total  of  204  towns  repre- 
sented by  245  delegates.     Ibid.,  273-279. 


132  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [133 

spects  similar  to  its  predecessors.1  The  officials  of  the 
second  Congress  also  served  this,  Joseph  Warren,  until  his 
death,  as  president,2  and  Samuel  Freeman  as  secretary.3  By 
this  body  the  affairs  of  the  province  were  administered  until 
July  19,  1775,  a  brief  period  in  which  important  constitu- 
tional and  military  changes  were  ejected,  each  of  which  can 
best  be  indicated  in  connection  with  the  series  of  antecedent 
events.  It  will  serve  the  purpose  to  notice  first  the  position 
of  the  Congress  with  reference  to  military  affairs,  and,  after  a 
review  of  some  of  the  more  important  lines  of  its  activity,  to 
consider  the  steps  by  which  the  Provincial  Congress  was 
superseded  by  a  General  Court  elected  in  accordance  with  the 
charter  of  1691,  and  with  the  last  provincial  election  law. 

§  2.  Military  Affairs 

Much  of  the  time  of  the  Provincial  Congress  was  devoted 
to  military  organization  in  anticipation  of  a  coming  struggle. 
Thus,  even  on  October  19,  a  committee  of  five,  including 
Captain  Heath,  was  appointed  "to  make  as  minute  an  in- 
quiry into  the  present  state  and  operation  of  the  army  as 
may  be,"4  and  their  report  on  the  next  day  was  immediately 

1  We  find  here  another  instance  of  the  control  of  the  Congress  over  elections. 
Upon  the  basis  of  a  committee  report  the  Congress,  "upon  examination,  judge 
that  the  persons  returned  as  delegates,  for  Eastham,  in  the  county  of  Barnstable, 
were  not  legally  chosen,  and  that  the  allowing  either  of  them  a  seat  in  this  house 
would  be  attended  with  many  inconveniences,"  and  therefore  pass  specifically  for 
Eastham  the  resolve  for  the  election  of  delegates  originally  sent  out  by  the  second 
Provincial  Congress,     yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  2S9. 

2  On  June  19,  1775,  James  Warren  was  chosen  president.  Journal  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress,  357.  James  Warren,  for  his  services  as  president  of  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress,  received  a  vote  of  thanks  from  the  house  of  representatives, 
October  3,  1775.     journal  of  Ike  House  of  Representatives. 

rf  February  9,  1776,  the  house  of  representatives  voted  £2  8  sh.  for  the  ser- 
vices of  Samuel  Freeman  as  secretary  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  July  7-19,  1775, 
"  in  full,"  and  ^25  for  recording  tin-  "  doings."  Journal  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  22. 


!  3  3  ]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MA  SSA  CHUSE  TTS  x  -,  ^ 

followed  by  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  thirteen,  two 
from  Suffolk  and  one  from  each  of  the  other  counties,  to 
consider  the  steps  necessary  for  the  defence  and  safety  of  the 
province.1  After  four  preliminary  reports,  the  work  of  the 
committee  was  accepted  at  the  second  session,  on  October 
26.  The  resolutions  summarized  the  relations  of  the  people 
with  the  royal  government,  the  acts  and  the  attitude  of  the 
latter,  the  results  of  the  various  episodes,  and  the  present 
status.  They  asserted  a  desire  for  peace  but  admitted  that 
there  was  reason  to  be  "  apprehensive  of  the  most  fatal  con- 
sequences," against  which  they  desired  that  they  might  be 
in  some  degree  prepared.  The  report  included  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  Committee  of  Safety  for  the  purpose  of  increas- 
ing the  military  efficiency  of  the  population,  and  included  as 
well  provision  for  the  election  of  commanding  officers  by  the 
Congress  and  of  subordinates  by  the  field  officers  and  by  the 
companies,  for  the  formation  of  a  complete  militia  system,  and 
for  the  instruction  and  equipment  of  the  people.  On  the  same 
day  a  committee  was  appointed  whose  report,  which  was  ac- 
cepted on  October  29,  turned  against  the  king  one  of  his 
own  weapons.  It  was  now  "  recommended  to  the  inhabitants 
of  this  province,  that  in  order  to  their  perfecting  themselves 
in  the  military  art,  they  proceed  in  the  method  ordered  by 
his  majesty  in  the  year  1764,  it  being,  in  the  opinion  of  this 
Congress,  best  calculated  for  appearance  and  defence."  2 

A  definite  beginning  was  thus  effected.  Little  of  striking 
importance  could  be  done,  and  yet  the  quiet  training  of  the 
men  to  military  service  and  the  gradual  supply  of  the  whole 
province  with  sufficient  arms  and  adequate  ammunition  was 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  23.  Samuel  Dexter  and  Capt.  Heath 
represented  Suffolk  Co.,  Major  Hawley  Hampshire  Co.,  and  Col.  Ward  Worcester 
Co.  The  members  were  named  by  the  delegates  from  each  county  respectively. 
On  October  24  the  Congress  added  Mr.  Gerry  and  three  others  to  this  committee. 
Ibid.,  29. 

2  Ibid.,  41. 


134  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [134 

work  which  in  its  results  was  to  be  of  vital  importance.  .The 
renewal,  by  the  second  Provincial  Congress,1  of  the  powers  of 
the  Committee  of  Safety  was  accompanied  by  the  reappoint- 
ment of  "  Prebble,"  Ward,  and  Pomeroy,  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  John  Thomas  and  William  Heath,2  as  general 
officers ;  and  their  business  was  stated  to  be  the  opposition 
to  the  execution  by  force  of  two  of  the  recent  acts  of  parlia- 
ment. While  the  Congress  took  an  active  control  of  military 
affairs,  much  of  the  routine  work  was  relegated  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  Safety.  The  larger  body,  however,  acted  through- 
out with  full  knowledge  and  realization  of  the  situation  ;  and 
this  was  made  possible  by  such  acts  as  that  of  March  22, 
1775,  when  a  committee  was  appointed  "to  receive  the  re- 
turns of  the  several  officers  of  militia,  of  their  numbers  and 
equipments,  and  the  returns  from  the  several  towns  of  their 
town  stock  of  ammunition."3  The  Congress  aimed  at  a  col- 
lection and  more  effective  distribution  of  the  available  arms 
and  ammunition.  It  further  could  use  its  superior  position 
to  appeal  successfully  to  the  population  of  the  entire  prov- 
ince for  early  activity  against  a  common  enemy.  It  finally 
urged  that  the  preliminary  plans  of  defence  "  be  still  most 
vigorously  pursued,  by  the  several  towns,  as  well  as  indi- 
vidual inhabitants,  and  that  any  relaxation  would  be  attended 
with  the  utmost  danger  to  the  liberties  of  this  colony  and  of 
all  America;"4  and  the  unpretentious  efforts  of  the  first 
months  were  in  large  measure  completed  when,  on  April  5, 
1775,  there  were  adopted  for  the  control  of  the  "Massa- 
chusetts army"  the  fifty-three  "  articles  of  war."5 

1  February  9,  1775. 

2  On  February    15,  1775,  John  Whitcomb  was  elected   an  additional  general 
officer. 

3  "Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  109.  i  March  24,  1775,  Ibid.,  no. 
5  Ibid.,  120-129.     On   May  5,   1775,  it  was  "  Resolved,  That  the  assembly  of 

Connecticut  be  supplied  with  the  rules  and  regulations  which  have  been  recom- 
mended to  be  observed  by  the  army  now  raising  in  this  colony."     Ibid,,  196. 


!  3 5 ]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  1  3  r 

The  resolves  introductory  to  this  code  state  that  "  the  lust 
of  power,  which  of  old  oppressed,  persecuted,  and  exiled  our 
pious  and  virtuous  ancestors  from  their  possessions  in 
Britain,  now  pursues  with  tenfold  severity  us,  their  guiltless 
children,"  who  now  "have  reason  to  apprehend,  that  the 
sudden  destruction  of  this  province  is  in  contemplation,  if 
not  determined  upon;"  and  now  "the  great  law  of  Self-pre- 
servation "  requires  an  "  army  of  observation  and  defence  " 
to  prevent  the  execution  by  force  of  the  acts  of  parliament. 
From  the  requirements  that  all  "  officers  and  soldiers,  not 
having  just  impediment,  shall  diligently  frequent  divine  ser- 
vice and  sermon,"  and  that  "  members  of  a  court  martial  are 
to  behave  with  calmness,  decency  and  impartiality;"  down 
to  the  details  of  ordinary  army  life,  the  articles  comprise  a 
varied  but  useful  code  of  military  administration.  Apart 
from  its  particular  provisions,  it  was  significant  as  indicating 
an  important  advance  in  the  organization  of  the  province 
and  as  emphasizing  the  control  of  the  Congress  over  that 
branch  of  service  which  at  the  time  was  by  far  the  most 
important.  Such  a  basis  could  give  much  more  meaning 
to  appeals  of  the  kind  sent  out  by  the  Congress  to  the 
committees  of  correspondence  in  Boston  and  eleven  neigh- 
boring towns,  on  April  7,  1775,  when  they  were  urged  to 
exert  themselves  "  that  the  militia  and  minute  men  of  your 
counties  be  found  in  the  best  posture  of  defence,  whenever 
any  exigence  may  require  their  aid;"  yet  the  Congress  did 
not  recommend  any  measures  that  their  enemies  might 
plausibly  interpret  as  a  commencement  of  hostilities.1 

On  the  following  day  an  important  step  was  taken  ;  a 
report  by  the  committee  on  the  state  of  the  province  was 
followed  by  the  adoption,  by  a  vote  of  96  in  a  house  of  103, 
of  a  resolution  that  "the  present  dangerous  and  alarming 
situation  of  our  public  affairs,  renders  it  necessary  for  this 
x  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  134. 


!  36  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [136 

colony  to  make  preparations  for  their  security  and  defence, 
by  raising  and  establishing  an  army,  .  .  ."x 

Delegations  were  at  once  appointed  to  visit  Connecticut, 
Rhode  Island  and  New  Hampshire  to  secure  their  concur- 
rence ;  and  one  week  later  the  Congress  adjourned  to  May 
10.  Such  recess,  however,  was  interrupted  by  the  events  of 
April  19.  Three  days  thereafter  the  Congress  re-assembled 
at  Concord  ;  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  they  met  at 
Watertown  and  requested  the  attendance  of  the  Committee 
of  Safety  with  whatever  plans  they  might  have.2  On  the 
succeeding  day,  Sunday,  April  23,  it  was  unanimously  re- 
solved that  an  army  of  30,000  men  should  be  immediately 
raised,  and  that  13,600  men  should  be  the  quota  of  Massa- 
chusetts. 3  The  Committee  of  Safety,  in  co-operation  with 
Messrs.  Cushing,  Sullivan,  Whitcomb  and  Durant,  were  in- 
structed "to  bring  in  a  plan  for  the  establishment  of  the  offi- 
cers and  soldiers  necessary  for  the  army,"  and  to  sit  imme- 
diately. This  step  was  communicated  to  the  three  adjoining 
provinces,  and  a  letter  was  sent  by  express  to  each  colonel 
in  the  army.  More  rapidly  than  had  been  anticipated  the 
war  footing  was  approached.4 

"Hostilities  are  at  length  commenced  in  this  colony,"  said 
the  Congress  in  the  address  of  April  26,  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Great  Britain.  Two  days  later,  in  a  letter  to  delegates  of 
New  Hampshire,  the  Congress  expresses  the  opinion  "  that 
a  powerful  army  on  our  side,  must,  at  once,  cut  out  such  a 
work    for  a   tyrannical  administration,   as,   under  the  great 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  135.  -Ibid.,  147. 

3  Ibid.,  148.  On  April  24  it  was  resolved  to  distribute  300  hand-bills  containing 
the  resolves  fur  the  establishment  of  an  army.     Ibid.,  150. 

*On  April  24  a  committee  of  one  from  each  county  was  appointed  to  attend 
the  committee  of  salety  "  and  let  them  know  the  names  of  the  officers  in  said 
counties  belonging  to  the  minnte  men,  and  such  as  are  most  suitable  for  officers 
in  the  army  now  raising."  Ibid.,  150.  On  April  25  it  was  voted  to  reduce  each 
company  from   100  to  59  men,  ten  companies  making  one  regiment.     Ibid.,  152. 


I  37]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  j  ,  - 

opposition  which  they  meet  with  in  England,  they  cannot 
accomplish  ;" »  while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  could  say  that 
the  "sanguinary  zeal  of  the  ministerial  army,  to  ruin  and 
destroy  the  inhabitants  of  this  colony,  in  the  opinion  of  this 
Congress  hath  rendered  the  establishment  of  an  army  indis- 
pensably necessary."2  Toward  the  success  of  the  movement 
further  typical  action  was  that  of  May  8,  when  certain  men 
were  appointed  to  collect  the  province  arms  in  Hampshire 
and  Berkshire  counties,3  and  when  a  committee  was  ap- 
pointed to  report  a  resolve  recommending  the  saving  of 
straw  for  the  use  of  the  army/  On  the  same  day  it  was 
recommended  to  the  local  committees  of  correspondence,  or, 
in  lack  of  such,  to  the  selectmen,  to  inquire  into  the  princi- 
ples and  conduct  of  all  suspected  persons,  and  cause  to  be 
disarmed  all  who  would  not  give  trustworthy  assurances, 
"of  their  readiness  to  join  their  countrymen,  on  all  occa- 
sions, in  defence  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  America;"5 
the  local  and  internal  elements  of  hostility  to  the  new  pro- 
gram of  action  were  thus  at  once  to  be  partially  removed,  and 
the  chances  of  failure  considerably  decreased. 

By  a  long  series  of  acts  with  a  variety  of  provisions  the 
Congress  took  its  position  as  the  responsible  head  of  the 
military  force  of  the  province.  By  it  officers  were  commis- 
sioned, enlistments  authorized,  and  regulations  established. 
By  it,  as  well,  the  building  of  various  fortifications  was  or- 
dered, the  distribution  of  supplies  regulated,  and  a  super- 
vision exercised  over  even  the  smallest  details  of  military 
equipment  and  procedure.  Such  a  position  was  for  a  body  of 
this  kind  natural  and  perfectly  simple,  and  a  recapitulation  of 
votes  and  reports  would  only  introduce  much  detail  of  slight 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congiess,  1 62. 

2  Letter  from  the  Mass.  Provincial  Congress  to  the  Continental  Congress,  May 
3,  1775.     Ibid.,  18S. 

%  Ibid.,  204.  *Ibid.,  206;    Cf.  Ibid.,  211.  b  Ibid.,  205. 


!  38  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [  x  38 

significance  and  serve  chiefly  to  emphasize  the  importance 
of  the  military  situation  at  the  time.  For  a  consideration  of 
the  constitutional  transition  discussion  of  the  military  prob- 
lem is  hardly  essentia!,  even  though  at  times  fully  one  half 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  related  to  affairs  of  de- 
fence. The  mere  statement  of  such  activity  and  the  indica- 
tion of  the  headship  acquired  by  the  body  in  these  matters 
may  suffice  to  define  the  nature  and  extent  of  one  of  the 
several  forms  of  power  exercised  by  the  Provincial  Congress. 
While  thus  controlling  completely  this  branch  of  the  provin- 
cial service,  the  Congress  took  a  step  of  significance  when, 
on  May  15,  1775,  it  voted  that  the  committee  having  in 
preparation  an  application  to  the  Continental  Congress 
should  "  be  directed  to  insert  a  clause  therein,  desiring  that 
the  said  congress  would  take  some  measures  for  directing 
and  regulating  the  American  forces."1  By  such  beginnings 
was  undertaken  the  incorporation  of  provincial  "armies" 
into  a  military  force  under  the  charge  of  the  Continental 
Congress.  Along  another  and  a  vitally  important  line  of 
action,  the  forces  of  the  new  nation  were  being  truly  nation- 
alized ;  the  functions  of  a  new  state  were  being  acquired 
gradually  by  those  whom  the  Philadelphia  Congress  repre- 
sented, and  in  the  process  the  powers  of  the  provincial  gov- 
ernment were  subjected,  willingly  it  might  be,  to  essential 
limitations.  This  change  was  of  importance  primarily  from 
a  military  point  of  view,  but  its  effect  upon  the  national  state 
then  in  process  of  formation  is  not  to  be  under-estimated. 
With  reference,  however,  to  Massachusetts  the  change  in- 
dicated was  made  clear  and  its  importance  plain  by  the 
appearance  in  the  province  of  the  newly  appointed  head  of 
the  "  continental "  army,  and  by  his  assumption  of  full  charge 
of  the  forces  operating  against  the  royal  troops.     Thereafter 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  224. 


1 39]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  z  39 

the  work  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  and  of  the  subsequent 
General  Courts,  was  directed  to  the  formation,  equipment, 
and  subordinate  regulation  of  its  quota  in  the  new  army ;  its 
position  as  the  head  of  an  independent  military  state  disap- 
peared virtually  in  its  willing  and  expedient  surrender  of 
authority  to  the  power  above. 

§  3.   The  Committee  of  Safety 

Provision  was  made  for  the  transaction  of  a  part  of  the 
administrative  business  devolving  on  the  Congress,  by  the 
appointment  of  a  Committee  of  Safety1  whose  term  of  office, 
significantly,  was  to  continue  "  until  the  further  order  of  this 
or  some  other  congress  or  house  of  representatives  of  the 
province;"  and  whose  duty,  in  the  official  words,  it  was 
"  most  carefully  and  diligently  to  inspect  and  observe  all  and 
every  such  person  and  persons,  as  shall,  at  any  time,  attempt 
or  enterprise  the  destruction,  invasion,  detriment  or  annoy- 
ance of  this  province,  .  .  ."  In  their  hands  was  placed, 
then,  the  protection  of  the  property  and  the  maintenance  of 
the  security  of  the  commonwealth,  as  well  as  the  charge  of 
the  supplies  for  defence  and  the  direction  of  those  members 
of  the  commonwealth  who  chose  to  enter  the  military  service 
of  the  Congress.  And  from  the  recognition  either  of  the  in- 
completeness of  their  own  authority  or  of  the  urgency  of  the 
situation,  it  was  deemed  proper  that  the  Congress  should 
"  most  earnestly  recommend  to  all  the  officers  and  soldiers 
of  the  militia  in  this  province,  who  shall,  from  time  to  time, 
during  the  commission  of  the  said  committee,  receive  any 
call  or  order  from  the  said  committee,  to  pay  the  strictest 

1  It  consisted  of  nine  members,  three  from  Boston,  and  six  "  gentlemen  of  the 
country."  The  Boston  members  were  Hancock,  Dr.  Warren,  and  Dr.  .Church. 
Among  the  others  were  Norton  Quincy  and  Devens.  October  27,  1 774- 
Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  35.  On  October  29,  Mr.  Pigeon  and  Capt. 
Heath  were  added  to  this  committee.     Ibid.,  48. 


1 40  FR  OM  PR  0  VINCI AL  TO  COMMON  WEAL  Til  [  t  40 

obedience  thereto,  as  they  regard  the  liberties  and  lives  of 
themselves  and  the  people  of  this  province."1 

Such  a  body  was  also  created  by  the  second  Provincial 
Congress,2  February  9,  1775,  with  powers  practically  the 
same  as  those  of  the  earlier  committee,3  although  increased 
by  the  provision  that  it  was  their  duty  "  most  carefully  and 
diligently  to  inspect  and  observe  all  and  every  such  person 
and  persons  as  shall  at  any  time  attempt  to  carry  into  exe- 
cution by  force,"  either  the  "regulating  act"  or  the  act  for 
the  impartial  administration  of  justice  in  Massachusetts. 
Some  weeks  later,  on  May  3,  a  committee  of  five,  including 
Col.  Warren,  was  appointed  "  to  overlook  the  commission  of 
the  committee  of  safety,  and  ...  to  see  whether  it  be  ne- 
cessary that  they  be  invested  with  other  powers  than  they 
now  have."4     On  May  17,5  this  committee  was  directed  to 

1  yonmal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  32.  Five  was  established  as  a  quorum  of 
the  committee;  of  the  five  only  one  should  be  an  inhabitant  of  Boston. 

2  Of  eleven  members,  Jabez  Fisher  was  in  the  place  of  Norton  Quincy;  other- 
wise the  committees  of  the  two  congresses  were  identical.  Ibid.,  89.  Quincy 
had  offered  his  resignation  on  February  7,  and  Fisher  had  been  elected  February 
8.  The  committee  of  safety,  as  such,  was  recognized  as  continuing  in  existence 
after  the  dissolution  of  one  congress  and  until  after,  as  well,  the  organization  of 
another  congress;  it  seemed  essential,  however,  that  each  newly  elected  congress 
should  sanction  the  smaller  executive  body  by  stating  and  confirming  its  powers. 
As  to  Quincy,  cf.  John  Adams,  Familiar  Letters,  179,  184. 

3  April  23,  1775,  Messrs.  Sullivan,  Whitcomb,  Durant,  and  Col.  Cushing  were 
added  to  the  committee  of  safety.     Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  148. 

4  Ibid.,  185.  On  May  12,  Mr.  Sullivan  was  put  on  the  committee  in  the  place  of 
Dr.  Holden,  absent.  Ibid.,  218.  On  May  17  Mr.  Sullivan  was  excused  from  serv- 
ing, and  Col.  Foster  and  Deacon  Fisher  were  added  to  the  committee.     Ibid.,  235. 

5  It  was  on  this  day  also  that  the  Committee  of  Safety  appointed  Dr.  Church 
and  two  others  to  request  of  the  Provincial  Congress  "that  forthwith  the  duty  of 
the  committee  of  safety  be  precisely  stated,  and  that  said  committee  be  empow- 
ered by  Congress  to  conduct  in  such  manner  as  shall  tend  to  the  advantage  of  the 
colony;  and  to  justify  the  conduct  of  said  committee,  so  far  as  their  proceedings 
are  correspondent  with  the  trust  imposed  in  them;  and  to  inform  the  Congress 
that  until  the  path  of  their  duty  is  clearly  pointed  out,  they  must  be  at  a  total  loss 
how  to  conduct,  so  as  to  stand  justified  in  their  own  minds,  and  in  the  minds  of 
the  people  of  this  colony."     Ibid.,  550,  551. 


1 4 1  ]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  l  *  z 

report  promptly;1  and  on  the  succeeding  day  the  Congress 
balloted  for  a  new  Committee  of  Safety  of  thirteen  members.2 
On  May  19  this  choice  was  incorporated  in  the  revised  form 
of  commission  and  the  whole  thus  sanctioned  by  the  formal 
action  of  the  Congress. 

The  newly  stated  powers  of  the  committee  included  the 
authority  to  issue  commissions  to  the  officers  of  regiments 
that  might  be  completed  in  the  approaching  interim  between 
two  Congresses  ;  they  included  also  the  authority  to  summon 
and  direct  the  militia  and,  further,  to  control  "the  army  of 
this  colony,"  "provided  always,  that  it  shall  be  in  the 
power  of  this,  or  any  future  congress,  to  control  any  order 
of  the  said  committee  of  safety,  respecting  this  or  any  other 
matter."3  Thus  they  aimed,  in  view  of  the  "particular  ex- 
igencies of  the  colony,"  to  make  the  committee's  commission 
"  as  concise  and  explicit  as  possible  .  .  ."  The  men  now 
appointed4  were  to  serve  "until  some  further  order  of  this, 
or  some  future  congress  or  house  of  representatives  of  this 
colony  shall  revoke  their,  or  either  of  their  appointments." 

1  Cn  May  9,  1775  the  Committee  of  Safety  voted  that,  "  as  the  circumstances  of 
this  colony  are  very  different  from  what  they  were  at  their  first  appointment,  the 
committee  would  represent  to  the  Congress,  that  they  apprehend  it  is  necessary, 
that  the  whole  of  their  duty  may  be  comprised  in  a  new  commission."  your- 
nal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  539,  540. 

2  Of  these,  9  had  been  among  the  11  elected,  February  9,  1775.  The  two 
others  then  chosen,  Messrs.  Wm.  Heath  and  Jabez  Fisher,  and  the  four  added, 
April  23,  1775,  Messrs.  Sullivan,  Durant,  Col.  Cushmg  and  Col.  Whitcomb  do  not 
.appear  on  the  present  list.  The  four  new  names  are  those  of  Benj.  Greenleaf, 
Nathan  Cushing,  Samuel  Holten,  and  Enoch  Freeman.     Ibid.,  89,  148,  238. 

3  Ibid.,  240-242.  The  preamble  of  these  instructions  gives  a  list  of  sixteen  men 
who  had  thitherto,  for  longer  or  shorter  periods,  been  members  of  the  committee  of 
safety.     The  quorum  was  again  fixed  at  five. 

4  It  was  on  June  6,  during  the  service  of  these  men,  that  the  Congress  called 
Tenjamin  Edwards  to  the  bar  of  the  house  to  explain  his  use  of  the  following 
language :  "  By  God,  if  this  province  is  to  be  governed  in  this  manner,  it  is  time 
for  us  to  look  out,  and  'tis  all  owing  to  the  committee  of  safety,  a  pack  of  sappy- 
head-fellows.     I  know  three  of  them  myself."     Ibid.,  yn. 


l.\2  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [J42 

Between  the  second  and  third  Congresses  there  was  slight 
interval  of  time  and  little  change  of  personnel,  so  that  the 
committee  had  no  dangerous  interim  to  face,  although  it  had 
regularly  to  contend  with  a  thoroughly  trying  condition  of 
affairs,  extending  over  crises  both  in  the  contest  of  arms  and 
in  the  internal  development.  The  powers  given  this  com- 
mittee on  May  18  were,  on  July  13,  declared  null,  when  a 
committee  of  five,1  appointed  "  to  revise  and  explain  the 
commission  of  the  committee  of  safety"  made  its  report. 
This  was  immediately  accepted,  and  included  the  re-appoint- 
ment of  the  eleven  committeemen  chosen  in  May.2  These 
men  now  were  given  full  power,  at  any  time  during  the  re- 
cess of  the  Congress,  to  call  together  "in  the  shortest  and 
most  effectual  manner,"  if  they  should  judge  it  necessary,  a 
quorum  of  at  least  forty  members  of  the  Congress.  The 
committee  were  empowered  to  appoint  the  place  of  meeting, 
and  were  "strictly  enjoined  to  notify  such  members  as  may 
be  most  expeditiously  assembled."  They  were  further  given 
the  power,  "  until  the  thirtieth  day  of  July  instant,  or  until 
their  commission  shall  be  abrogated  by  the  representative 
body  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  colony,"  to  summon  the 
militia,  either  upon  the  application  of  the  ranking  officer  in 
Massachusetts  of  the  continental  army,  or  upon  their  own 
judgment  that  the  safety  of  lives  and  property  required  such 
a  step.  For  a  similar  period  they  were  empowered  to  em- 
ploy and  supervise  armorers  and  other  artificers  sufficient  for 

1  Appointed  on  the  morning  of  July  13,  they  reported  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
same  day.  Two  days  earlier  a  committee  of  three  had  been  appointed  "to  en- 
large the  commission  of  the  committee  of  safety."  Journal  of  the  Provincial 
Congress,  498,  490. 

2  Of  the  lists  of  committeemen  accepted  October  27,  1774,  February  9,  1775, 
May  18,  1775,  and  July  13,  1775,  each  of  the  four  had  included  the  following 
seven  names:  Hon.  John  Hancock,  Dr.  Benj.  Church,  Col.  Azor  Orne,  Mr. 
Richard  Uevens,  Col.  Joseph  Palmer,  Capt.  Benj.  White,  and  Mr.  Abraham 
Watson.  It  should  be  stated  that  Dr.  Jos.  Warren  was  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee until  his  death. 


1 43 ]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  Y^ 

the  Massachusetts  quota  of  the  continental  army.  They  were 
authorized  to  execute  all  commissions  and  services  to  which, 
during  the  current  session,  they  had  been  appointed  and 
which  remained  uncompleted.  To  them  was  entrusted  the 
care  of  the  poor  from  Boston  and  Charlestown.  The  quo- 
rum was  retained  at  five.  Finally,  for  the  period  already 
stated,  they  were  given  the  inclusive  power  "to  receive,  ex- 
amine, and  discharge,  or  cause  to  be  confined,  according  to 
their  wisdom,  any  person  or  persons  taken  captive,  that  may 
properly  come  under  the  cognizance  of  the  representative 
body  of  this  people,  and  to  receive,  and  duly  secure,  any 
interests,  or  effects,  the  conduct  whereof  is  not  already  pro- 
vided for,  that  shall  be  at  the  disposal  of  this  colony."  With 
such  powers1  the  Committee  of  Safety  entered  the  last  period 
of  its  existence,  this  final  fortnight  of  its  work  embracing  the 
closing  week  of  the  Provincial  Congress  and  the  opening  of 
the  new  General  Court,  a  fortnight,  however,  of  the  proceed- 
ings during  which  even  scant  records  are  lacking. 

From  November,  1774,  to  July,  1775,  this  body  served  as 
an  effective  representative  of  the  Congress  in  the  exercise  of 
functions  of  a  most  important  type.2  To  it  was  relegated  a 
large  portion  of  the  routine  and  detail  connected  with  the 
maintenance  and  supervision  of  a  military  force.  The  initia- 
tion of  steps  of  belligerency  and  of  internal  organization 
preparatory  thereto  rested  with  the  Congress ;  the  direction 
of  many  such  movements,  however,  devolved  upon  the 
smaller  body.  By  it,  as  well,  was  supervised  the  activity 
incident  to  the  completion  of  such  processes ;  for  such  su- 
pervision it  remained  in  service  and  held  meetings  both  dur- 
ing the  sessions  of  the  Congress  and  in  the  intermediate 
periods;  and  it  attained  greater  working  efficiency  through 
the  arrangement  by  which  its  meetings  often  partook  of  the 

1  This  commission  is  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  498,  499. 

2  The  journals  of  this  body  are  printed  in  ibid.,  505-597. 


1 44  FR OM  PR  O  VINCI 'A L   TO  COMMONWEAL  TH  [  1 44 

nature  of  a  joint  conference  of  members  of  the  Committee  of 
Safety  and  members  of  such  committees  as  that  of  supplies.1 
Much  of  the  committee's  energy  necessarily  was  devoted  to 
procuring  and  properly  distributing  the  military  and  other 
supplies  of  the  province.  Pork  and  pick-axes,  bell-tents  and 
shells,  medicine,  mortars,  and  powder  received  indiscrimi- 
nately the  minute  attention  of  the  committee.  The  equip- 
ment of  an  army  was  no  slight  task ;  and  the  accomplish- 
ment of  that  alone  would  suffice  to  prove  that  this  body  was 
an  important  factor  in  the  transition,  although  in  itself  not 
connected  with  the  constitutional  development. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  offer  more  than  a  characterization  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  committee's  work.  That  its  activity, 
however,  was  not  wholly  of  a  subordinate  nature  is  made 
plain  even  by  a  few  of  its  acts  relative  to  the  military  situa- 
tion. Thus,  on  February  23,  1775,  Dr.  Church,  Mr.  Gerry 
and  John  Pigeon,  were  appointed  "  to  draft  a  letter  to  the 
commanding  officers  of  the  militia,  and  the  commanding 
officers  of  the  minute  men  ...  to  assemble  one  fourth 
part  of  the  militia  through  the  province  on  the  receipt 
of  this  letter."2  Further  typical  action  is  seen  during 
the  month  of  April.  Then  it  was  ordered  that  the  supply  of 
cannon  powder  at  Leicester  be  removed,  '  one  load  at  a 
time,'  to  Concord,  and  there  'made  into  cartridges,  under 
the  direction  of  the  committee  of  supplies.' 3  Soon  thereafter 
the  transportation  of  four  six-pounders  to  Groton  and  of 
two  brass  mortars  to  Acton  was  ordered.4     On  April  18  the 

1  Cf.  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  505,  506,  507,  et  sea.  Cf.  ibid.,  515  : 
"  Voted,  That  when  these  committees  adjourn,  it  be  .  .  .  ." 

2  IbiJ.,  510.  It  was  directed  that  one  hundred  copies  of  such  a  letter  should  be 
printed,  as  well  as  two  hundred  copies  of  the  resolve  of  Congress  granting  the 
committee  power  to  assemble  the  militia. 

3  Ibid.,  514.  This  is  entered  as  of  Saturday,  April  14;  it  would  seem,  however, 
that  Saturday  was  April  15.  4  April  17.     Ibid.,  515. 


145]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  T  4? 

work  of  the  two  committees  was  especially  characteristic  and 
significant,  for  on  that  day,  meeting  at  Menotomy  instead  of 
at  Concord  as  immediately  before,  they  appointed  nine  towns1 
in  which  all  the  ammunition  of  the  province  should  be  de- 
posited, and  named  six  towns2  which  should  each  be  the  sta- 
tion of  an  ammunition  cart  and  of  a  company  of  matrosses. 
The  action  of  the  fourteenth  relative  to  the  transfer  of  powder 
was  reconsidered ;  the  removal  from  Concord  of  a  portion 
of  the  provisions  there,  including  flour,  beef,  rice,  molasses, 
rum,  and  candles  was  directed;  and  it  was  also  determined 
that  a  considerable  supply  of  larger  ammunition  should  be 
transferred  from  Stoughtonham  to  Sudbury.  The  distribution 
of  supplies  in  anticipation  of  a  contest  on  the  field  consisted 
chiefly  in  a  removal  to  places  of  greater  security  of  the  larger 
portion  of  the  materials  at  Concord.3  The  redistribution  of 
supplies  extended  to  shovels  and  canteens,  as  well  as  to 
cannon,  tents,4  and  medicine  chests.5  Finally,  it  was  voted 
"  that  the  musket  balls  under  the  care  of  Col.  Barrett,  be 
buried  under  ground,  in  some  safe  place,  that  he  be  desired 

1  Worcester,  Lancaster,  Concord,  Groton,  Stoughtonham,  Stow,  Mendon, 
Leicester,  and  Sudbury.     Ibid.,  516. 

2  Worcester,  Concord,  Stoughtonham,  Stoughton,  Stow,  and  Lancaster.  Ibid. 
It  was  also  voted  that  Worcester,  Concord,  Stow  and  Lancaster  should  each  be 
provided  with  two  three-pound  cannon.     Ibid.,  517. 

3  Thus  it  was  ordered  that  of  the  spades,  pick-axes,  bill-hooks,  shovels,  axes, 
hatchets,  crows,  and  wheelbarrows  at  Concord,  one-third  should  be  left  at  Con- 
cord, one-third  placed  at  Sudbury,  and  one-third  at  Stow.  Further,  of  two 
thousand  iron  pots,  two  thousand  wooden  bowls,  and  fifteen  thousand  canteens, 
one-half  of  each  should  be  placed  at  Worcester,  one-fourth  at  Concord,  and  one- 
fourth  at  Sudbury.     Ibid.,  517. 

4  It  was  ordered  that  eleven  hundred  tents  be  equally  distributed  among  the 
towns  of  Worcester,  Lancaster,  Groton,  Stow,  Mendon,  Leicester,  and  Sudbury. 
Ibid.,  518. 

5  Of  the  medicine  chests  it  was  ordered  that  two  each  should  be  placed  in  Con- 
cord, Groton,  Mendon,  Stow,  Worcester,  and  Lancaster,  and  three  in  Sudbury, 
the  cases  in  each  instance  being  kept  in  different  parts  of  the  town.  Ibid.,  517. 
Cf.  Shattuck,  History  of  Concord,  97-99. 


146  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \\lfc 

to  do  it,  and  to  let  the  commissary  only  be  informed  there- 
of."1 The  weights  and  measures  were  committed  to  the 
keeping  of  the  commissary,  and  the  papers  belonging  to  the 
two  committees  were  "  lodged  with  Mr.  Abraham  Watson." 
Thus  was  careful  preparation  made  for  the  event  of  the  nine- 
teenth of  April. 

By  that  event  the  situation  was  materially  changed. 
Such  change,  in  the  view  of  the  committee,  "  made  it 
absolutely  necessary,  that  we  immediately  raise  an  army 
to  defend  our  wives  and  children  from  the  butchering 
hands  of  an  inhuman  soldiery,"  who  were  eager  "  to 
ravage  this  devoted  country  with  fire  and  sword."  Thus 
they  addressed  the  several  towns  in  a  circular  letter;  and 
therein  they  continued:  "We  conjure  you,  therefore,  by  all 
that  is  sacred,  that  you  give  assistance  in  forming  an  army. 
Our  all  is  at  stake.  Death  and  devastation  are  the  certain 
consequences  of  delay.  .  .  .  We  beg  and  entreat,  as  you 
will  answer  to  your  country,  to  your  own  consciences,  and 
above  all,  as  you  will  answer  to  God  himself,  that  you  will 
hasten  and  encourage  by  all  possible  means,  the  enlistment 
of  men  to  form  the  army,  and  send  them  forward  to  head 
quarters  at  Cambridge,  with  that  expedition,  which  the  vast 
importance  and  instant  urgency  of  the  affair  demands."2  On 
the  day  thereafter,  April  21,  they  passed  a  resolution  for  the 
immediate  enlistment  from  the  Massachusetts  forces,  of 
eight  thousand  effective  men  to  serve  for  seven  months,  "  un- 
less the  safety  of  the  province  will  admit  of  their  being  dis- 
charged sooner;  .  .  ."3  Thereafter,  the  more  obvious  his- 
tory of  the  Revolution  was  the  military  history,  and  through- 
out this  the  presence  of  the  Committee  of  Safety  was  seen. 
Thus  a  fortnight  later,4  when  news  was  received  that  British 
transports  from   England  had  just  arrived  at  Boston,  a  com- 

1  Journal  of the  Provincial  Congress,  517.  -Ibid.,  518. 

*  Ibid.,  520.  *  May  4,  1775;   Ibid.,  538. 


r 47]  GO VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  147 

mittee  of  three  was  appointed  to  confer  with  the  council  of 
war.  Five  days  later  the  council  of  war  having  determined 
that  an  addition  of  two  thousand  to  the  army  at  Roxbury 
was  necessary,  "and  that,  if  possible,  the  reenforcement  be 
brought  into  camp  the  ensuing  night;"  the  Committee  of 
Safety  ordered  the  commanding  officers  in  ten  towns1  that 
they  should  "  immediately  muster  one-half  of  the  militia,  and 
all  the  minute  men  under  their  command,  and  march  them 
forthwith  to  the  town  of  Roxbury,  for  the  strengthening  of 
the  camp  there."2  Over  the  provincial  army,  thus,  they  ex- 
ercised a  control  that  extended  even  to  the  establishment  of 
the  soldier's  rations,3  a  control  which,  however  important  in 
itself  for  the  time  being,  was  soon  to  be  radically  modified, 
as  elsewhere  suggested,  by  the  rearrangements  through  which 
to  a  large  extent  the  military  functions  of  the  Provincial 
Congress  were  abrogated. 

§  4.  Economic  Affairs 

The  Provincial  Congress  naturally  strove  to  secure  within 
Massachusetts  a  strict  and  uniform  observance  of  the  conti- 
nental "  association."  Locally,  thus,  it  took  the  lead  in  the 
commercial  warfare ;  but  it  went  still  farther  and  directed  the 
general  conduct  to  such  an  end  that  the  colonists  might  for 
the  future  have  commercial  independence  of  the  mother 
country,  whatever  might  be   their  political  relations.     The 

1  Dorchester,  Dedham,  Newton,  Watertown,  Waltham,  Roxbury,  Milton,  Brain- 
tree,  Brookline,  and  Needham.     yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  540. 

2  Ibid.,  540. 

3Thus,  June  15,  1775,  it  was  voted  to  allow  each  man  in  the  Massachusetts 
army  daily :  one  pound  of  bread;  one  pint  of  milk  or  one  gill  of  rice;  one  quart 
of  "good  spruce  or  malt  beer;"  one  gill  of  peas  or  beans,  "or  other  sauce 
equivalent;"  and  a  stated  amount  of  beef  and  pork,  or  of  beef  alone,  with  a 
weekly  allowance  of  fish.  There  was  also  a  weekly  allowance  of  a  half  pint  of 
vinegar  "if  it  can  be  had,"  and  of  six  ounces  of  "good  butter"  to  each  man,  as 
well  as  "  one  pound  of  good  common  soap  for  six  men  per  week."     Ibid.,  56S. 


!4#  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  T^g 

men  of  the  Congress  began  early  to  lay  deep  the  foundations 
of  future  welfare.  They  could  not  neglect  the  economics  of 
the  situation,  but  appointed  two  committees  whose  work  was 
significant.  The  one  was  to  make  "  as  just  an  estimate  as 
may  be  of  the  loss  and  damage  of  every  kind"  that  came 
"  to  the  province  by  the  operation  of  the  Boston  port  bill 
and  the  act  for  altering  the  civil  government,  from  their  com- 
mencement to  this  time."1  The  other  was  directed  "to 
state  the  amount  of  the  sums  which  have  been  extorted  from 
us  since  the  year  1763,  by  the  operation  of  certain  acts  of 
the  British  parliament."2  On  the  day  preceding  this  action 
a  committee  of  seven  was  appointed  "to  take  into  considera- 
tion the  state  of  the  manufactures,  and  how  they  may  be 
improved  in  this  province."3  Certain  elements  of  economic 
weakness  they  thus  perceived  and  it  was  their  purpose  to 
avoid  as  far  as  possible  the  greater  injuries  incident  to  the 
commercial  contest  already  begun,  and  to  the  contest  of 
arms  then  becoming  increasingly  probable.  A  further  pre- 
liminary step  was  the  effort  to  ascertain  the  resources  of  the 
province  through  a  plan  formed  by  the  Adamses  and 
Colonel  Danielson.  On  the  same  day4  one  man  from  each 
county  and  one  from  each  maritime  town  were  appointed 
whose  duty  it  was  "  to  prepare  from  the  best  authentic  evi- 
dence which  can  be  procured,  a  true  state  of  the  number  of 
the  inhabitants,  and  of  the  quantities  of  exports  and  imports 
of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandize,  and  of  manufactures  of  all 
kinds,  within  the  colony,  .  .  ."5  While  primarily  for  the  in- 
formation of  the  Continental  Congress,  the  mere  collection  of 
such  information  must  have  afforded  practical  assistance  and 
incentive  to  those  who  were  directing  the  legislation  of  the 
Provincial  Congress. 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  52.     This  Committee  made  a  report,  Feb- 
ruary 10,  1775;   "  the  report  was  ordered  to  be  filed."     Pi/.,  95. 

2  Ibid.  52.  3  November  28,  1 774.     Ibid. 
4  December  7,  1774.  5  Hid.,  Gi. 


1 49]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MA  SSA  CHUSE  TTS  z  49 

With  equal  promptness,  however,  on  the  day  after  the 
action  just  outlined,  the  members  of  the  first  Congress  put 
themselves  on  record  by  accepting  a  suggestive  and  signifi- 
cant report  submitted  by  the  committee  on  manufactures.1 
Although  merely  a  series  of  recommendations  to  their  con- 
stituents, the  action  illustrates  plainly  the  condition  of  the 
province  and  the  policy  of  its  leaders.  The  preamble  of 
their  resolutions  suggests  that  "  the  happiness  of  every 
political  body  of  men  upon  earth,  is  to  be  estimated,  in  a 
great  measure,  upon  their  greater  or  less  dependence  upon 
any  other  political  bodies;"  internal  economic  weakness 
may  readily  entail  political  subjection  to  another  body.  To 
prevent  "  so  great  an  evil,  more  to  be  dreaded  than  death 
itself,  it  must  be  the  wisdom  of  this  colony  at  all  times,  more 
especially  at  this  time,  when  the  hand  of  power  is  lashing  us 
with  the  scorpions  of  despotism,  to  encourage  agriculture, 
manufactures,  and  economy,  so  as  to  render  this  state  as  in- 
dependent of  every  other  state  as  the  nature  of  our  country 
will  admit;  .  .  ."2  The  solution  of  the  problem  thus  stated 
is  begun  by  a  series  of  recommendations  covering  a  wide  field 
and  showing  certainly  an  ambition  for  economic  independ- 
ence. Thus,  first  of  all,  the  people  are  urged  to  "the  im- 
provement of  their  breed  of  sheep,  and  the  greatest  possible 
increase  of  the  same  ;  and  also  the  preferable  use  of  our  own 
woollen  manufactures;"3  and  this  is  followed  by  similar  re- 
mark on  the  raising  of  flax  and  hemp.  Even  the  making  of 
nails  and  the  manufacture  of  saltpetre,  "  an  article  of  vast 
importance."  and  likewise  the  manufacture  of  gun  powder, 
of  steel,  and  of  tin  plate  is  strongly  recommended.  Gun- 
locks,  salt,  glass,  paper,  madder,  buttons,  and  wool-combers' 
combs,  are  brought  to  the  public  notice  as  proper  objects  for 
an  expanding  industry.     In  connection  with  the  paper  pro- 

1  December  8,  1774.     Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  62-65. 

2  Ibid.,  63.  3  Ibid.,  63. 


,50  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  rjij0 

duct  "a  careful  saving  and  collection  of  rags"  is  suggested, 
and  a  bit  of  bold  economic  legislation  is  attempted  when  they 
recommend  "  that  the  manufacturers  give  a  generous  price 
for  such  rags "  The  "  encouragement  of  horse- 
smiths  in  all  their  various  branches"  is  said  to  be  of  "  public 
utility,"  and  a  further  proposition  is  the  "  preferable  use  of 
the  stockings  and  other  hosiery  wove  among  ourselves  so  as 
to  enlarge  the  manufactories  thereof,  .  .  ."  The  establish- 
ment of  societies  in  arts  and  manufactures  is  indicated  as  a 
means  of  making  more  effective  these  resolutions,  which  are 
concluded  with  the  advice,  already  suggested  in  another 
connection,  that  the  people  "  make  use  of  our  own  manu- 
factures, and  those  of  our  sister  colonies,  in  preference  to  all 
other  manufactures."1  Economic  self-defense  was  thus 
crudely  begun. 

Subsequently,  in  answer  to  the  petition  of  Messrs.  Boice 
and  Clark,2  who  had  "  at  a  very  considerable  expense," 
erected  paper  works  at  Milton  and  who  were  unable  to 
obtain  a  "  sufficiency  of  rags  to  answer  their  purpose,"  it  was 
resolved  especially  to  urge  "every  family  in  this  province,  to 
preserve  all  their  linen,  and  cotton  and  linen  rags,"  and  it 
was  "also  recommended  to  our  several  towns,  to  take  such 
further  measures  for  the  encouragement  of  the  manufacture 
aforesaid,  as  they  shall  think  proper."3  Likewise,  soon  there- 
after,4 an  equally  significant  step  was  taken  when  the  Con- 
gress adopted  such  portions  of  a   report5  as  provided  that 

1  jfournals  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  65. 

2  February  8,  1775;   Ibid.,  88. 

3  February  9,  1775;  Ibid.,  94.  On  May  16,  1775,  on  a  report  from  Col.  Bar- 
rett that  a  prisoner  at  Worcester  was  a  paper  maker,  the  committee  of  safety 
resolved  that  the  prisoner  should  be  removed  to  Boice's  paper  mill  at  Milton. 
Ibid.,  549. 

*  February  15,  1775.     Ibid.,  100. 

6  The  committee  was  appointed  February  13,  1775,  and  consisted  of  Stephen 
Hall,  Dr.  Warren,  and  Mr.  Browne  of  Abington.     Ibid.,  98. 


I  5  I  ]  G ° VERNMEN T  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  Yc\ 

there  should  be  appointed  a  committee  "to  draw  up  direc- 
tions, in  an  easy  and  familiar  style,  for  the  manufacturing  of 
saltpetre,  and  that  the  same  be  printed  and  sent  to  every 
town  and  district  in  this  province,  at  the  public  expense."1 
The  step  was  made  effective  by  the  guarantee  of  the  Congress 
to  purchase  at  a  stated  price  all  the  saltpetre  manufactured 
in  the  province  during  the  subsequent  twelve  months.2  To 
develop  this  line  of  manufacture,  a  delegate  was  sent  to  New 
York  to  secure  full  information  regarding  the  manufacture  of 
saltpetre,  and  to  engage  the  services  of  an  expert  in  that 
work.3  Similar  encouragement  was  given  to  the  American 
manufacturers  of  fire  arms  and  bayonets,  when  the  Congress 
resolved  "  to  give  the  preference  to,  and  purchase  from 
them,  so  many  effective  arms  and  bayonets  as  can  be  deliv- 
ered in  a  reasonable  time,  upon  notice  given  to  this  Congress 
at  its  next  session."4  On  many  such  lines  the  Congress  ex- 
panded the  normal  functions  of  a  legislative  body  in  its 
effort  to  develop  the  resources  of  the  province  to  such  a 
point  that  political  self  protection  and  economic  indepen- 
dence would  be  equally  possible  and  permanent. 

§  5.  Public  Finance 

The  supremacy  of  the  Provincial  Congress  and  its  early 
claim  of  some  permanence  were  manifested  by  nothing 
more  plainly  than  by  the  attitude  and  action  of  the  Con- 

1  yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  100. 

2  This  function  of  the  Congress  to  guarantee,  in  various  ways,  private  invest- 
ments in  enterprises  of  public  benefit,  is  well  illustrated  in  other  colonies. 
Cf  e.g.:  Journals  of  the  Provincial  Congress  of  New  I 'ork,  Albany,  1842,1., 
349,365.  4  American  Archives,  III.,  209-211;  IV.,  72;  V.,  1336-1338;  V., 
1560;  VI.,  1469.  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  Virginia  [of  March  1775], 
Richmond,  1816,  7,  8.  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  Virginia  [of  July  1775], 
Richmond,  1816,  61,  62. 

3  Ibid.,  417,  418,  421,  423. 

4  yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  103. 


I  5  2  FROM  PRO  VINCIAL  TO  COMMON  WEAL  TH  \l$2 

gress  upon  matters  of  public  finance.  It  has  been  seen 
already  that  after  three  weeks  of  preliminary  work  the  Con- 
gress had  taken  into  its  immediate  control  the  financial  sys- 
tem of  the  province,  and  had  appointed  a  provincial  treas- 
urer and  receiver-general  who  should  supersede  the  royal 
appointee.  Having  created  at  the  head  of  this  important  de- 
partment an  official  who  recognized  no  superior  except  the 
Congress,  the  efforts  of  that  new  representative  body  were 
thoroughly  and  promptly  endorsed  by  the  towns  throughout 
the  province.  By  these  recognition  was  accorded  the  new 
treasurer,  and  to  him,  if  to  anyone,  the  proper  local  pay- 
ments were  made.  The  constables  in  the  towns,  and  the 
sheriffs  in  the  counties,  as  well  as  the  respective  assessors 
and  commissioners,  acted  under  immediate  responsibility  to 
their  various  constituencies,  and  in  direct  obedience  to  them. 
Above  these  officials  all  persons  connected  with  the  finan- 
cial administration  of  the  province  were  appointed  and  di- 
rected by  the  Provincial  Congress.  Thus  quickly,  and  with- 
out disturbance,  the  new  power  gained  control  of  what 
might  well  be  made  its  greatest  strength,  and  the  loss  of  which 
was  to  become  in  every  way  a  serious  matter  for  the  royal 
government,  even  though  the  mere  loss  of  provincial  revenue 
might  easily  be  sustained,  and  the  diverting  of  it  to  improper 
channels  overlooked  for  a  time.  In  this  instance,  however, 
there  was  slight  indication  that  the  diversion  was  temporary. 
It  was  quite  otherwise;  and  the  accompanying  changes  even 
of  personnel  were  equally  suggestive  of  a  completere  organiz- 
ation of  government,  with  the  recognition  of  new  theories  at 
its   base  and  a  new  sovereign   at  its   head. 

Asserting  thus  early  its  control  of  the  financial  administra- 
tion, the  Congress  proceeded  promptly  to  exercise  functions 
relative  thereto  and  of  equally  deep  significance.  Thus, 
more  than  a  week  before  Gardner  was  given  his  appoint- 
ment, the  Provincial  Congress  began  the  consideration  of  a 


■  153]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  j  e  3 

far  more  radical  step,  the  appropriation  of  taxes  assessed 
under  the  royal  government.  The  committee,  already 
noticed,  "  on  the  state  of  the  province,"  reported,  on  Octo- 
ber 20,  a  resolve  "  relative  to  the  payment  and  collecting  of 
the  outstanding  rates  and  taxes,"  which  was  read  and  recom- 
mitted.1 The  same  committee,  October  28,  again  reported 
such  a  resolve  which  at  first  was  promptly  accepted.  This 
vote,  however,  was  immediately  reconsidered,  and  the  re- 
solve was  referred  for  amendment  to  Major  Hawley,  Mr. 
Gerry,  and  Major  Foster.  Their  report  was  promptly  made, 
and  the  resolve  forthwith  adopted.  In  this  was  incorporated 
the  earlier  action  of  the  same  day,  the  election  of  Henry 
Gardner  as  provincial  treasurer.  The  duties  of  that  ofhcer 
were  indicated  in  a  general  way,  and  recommendations 
were  adopted  urging  the  payment  to  him  of  all  province 
moneys,  and  "  that  the  like  order  be  observed  respecting 
the  tax  ordered  by  the  great  and  general  court  at  their  last 
May  session.2"  The  recommendations  of  a  body  so  formed 
could  not  be  other  than  an  expression  of  public  opinion, 
and  were  for  the  people  of  the  province  law  in  everything 
but  name.  By  such  action  at  this  time  the  Provincial 
Congress  asserted,  in  part  possibly  by  implication,  that 
in  itself  alone  rested  the  control  of  the  provincial  funds  by 
whomsoever  created,3  and  that  by  itself  as  well  was 
acquired  the  functions  of  the  earlier  General  Court,  to 
levy  and  collect  taxes  as  the  legal  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  position  thus  assumed  was  reaffirmed  in  Decem- 
ber,4 and   the   authority  of  the  Provincial   Congress  in  this 

1  yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  23.  2  Ibid.,  39. 

3  This  is  made  plain  even  so  late  as  April  25,  1775,  when  the  Congress  ordered 
the  treasurer  to  make  a  statement  concerning  the  finances  of  the  province,  and 
he  answered  "  in  a  general  way,  that,  for  the  year  1773,  it  was  supposed  that 
about  ^20,000  was  due,  and  that  he  had  received  about  ^5,000."     Ibid.,  151. 

*  December  9,  1774.     Ibid,,  65. 


I  5  4  FR  OM  PR  O  VIN  CIAL   TO  COMMON  WEAL  TH  [i  54 

matter  seems  to  have  been  seriously  questioned  by  none. 
Its  officers  were  recognized  as  fully  authorized  to  handle  all 
province  moneys. 

Such  funds,  however,  scarcely  sufficed  to  meet  even  the 
preliminary  expenses  of  a  campaign  still  in  the  future.  The 
effect  of  the  policy  of  the  "  association  "  was  naturally  to  de- 
crease the  supply  of  ready  money ;  and  whatever  small 
amounts  might  be  held  by  its  self-sacrificing  supporters 
could  well  be  retained  by  them,  during  such  uncertainty  of 
government,  without  a  conscious  stifling  of  patriotism. 
Whatever  were  the  causes,  it  was  a  striking,  if  unpleasant, 
fact  that  many  towns  were  repeatedly,  in  cases  perhaps  even 
permanently,  delinquent  in  the  payment  of  provincial  taxes. 
Nevertheless,  the  imperative  need  of  more  secure  fortifica- 
tions and  of  ampler  military  supplies  rendered  unavoidable, 
if  submission  were  not  to  follow,  an  early  and  a  large  ex- 
penditure. The  equipment  and  the  support  of  an  army,  as 
well  as  the  payment  of  volunteers,  increased  the  cost  of  the 
new  movement  and  made  necessary  the  acquisition,  by  some 
means,  of  a  fund  of  ready  money. 

The  seriousness  of  the  financial  situation  did  not  become 
evident  until  the  time  of  the  second  Provincial  Congress. 
The  first  Congress  had  appointed  a  committee  "to  collect  the 
several  expenses  which  have  accrued  to  the  Congress  in  this 
and  a  former  session  thereof,"  had  accepted  their  report  on 
the  last  day  of  their  session,  and  then  had  easily  disposed  of 
the  matter  by  ordering  the  receiver-general  "  to  pay  and 
discharge  the  several  demands  therein  mentioned."1  With 
the  second  Provincial  Congress,  however,  the  problems  and 
the  difficulties  appeared.  Thus,  as  early  as  February  7, 
1775,  when  Dr.  Warren  and  four  associates  were  appointed 
to  consider  the  accounts  of  the  delegates  to  the  recent  Con- 
tinental Congress  and  to   report  an  allowance  for  their  ex- 

1  yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  72. 


I55]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  T55 

penses  and  services,  they  were  directed  "  also  to  devise  some 
method  how  the  money  shall  be  procured  to  discharge  the 
same ;  and  also  how  the  money  shall  be  procured  to  enable 
our  present  delegates  appointed  to  attend  the  American 
Congress  to  refund  their  expenses."1  A  trivial  matter  thus 
suggested  an  important  question,  but  for  the  time  being  a 
resort  to  any  special  method  of  money-raising  was  avoided.2 

At  the  end  of  March  the  needs  of  the  province  were  im- 
pressed upon  the  towns  by  the  Provincial  Congress  in  a  hand- 
bill urging  the  immediate  payment  of  public  moneys  still  re- 
tained by  negligent  collectors  and  constables  and  expressing 
the  desire  of  the  Congress  to  complete  "  the  preparations  so 
essentially  necessary  to  the  public  safety,  without  calling  on 
them  for  other  moneys,  than  such  as  are  now  due  to  the 
colony."3  The  possibilities  did  not  really  become  im- 
mediate until  after  the  events  of  April  19.  The  patriotic 
vote,  passed  soon  thereafter,  to  raise  an  army  of  13,600 
naturally  involved  many  contingencies.  Of  these,  the  most 
formidable  was  soon  before  the  Congress ;  and  on  April  27, 
by  special  order  of  the  day  previous,  the  Congress  took  up 
the  matter  of  supplying  the  treasury,  and  ordered  that  a 
committee  of  seven  be  chosen  by  ballot  for  reporting  there- 
on.4 The  Rev.  Mr.  Murray,  Col.  Dexter,  Mr.  Gerry,  and 
four  others  were,  on  April  29,  named  for  this  service.3 

On  May  3  a  report  was  rendered  and  accepted.  By  this 
action  the  receiver-general  was  "empowered  and  directed" 
to  borrow  £100,000,  "lawful  money,"  and  to  issue  in  return 
securities  of  the  colony  bearing  six  per  cent,  interest,  and 
payable  June   1,    1777.6     A  form  of  security   was  adopted, 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  87. 

2  The  committee  report  was  adopted  February  10,  and  simply  authorized  the 
specified  payments  to  be  made  to  the  men  in  question  by  the  receiver-general, 
without  any  reference  to  any  special  means  of  raising  the  funds.     Ibid.,  95. 

3  March  31,  1775.     Ibid.,  113.  4  Ibid.,  160.  *  Ibid.,  169. 

6  It  was  provided,  later  in  the  day,  that  no  note  of  less  than  £4.  be  issued.  Ibid., 
186,  187. 


I  r  6  FR  OM  PR  O  VINCIAL   TO  COMMON  WEAL  TH  [  \  5  5 

and  it  was  resolved  that  the  Continental  Congress  "be  de- 
sired to  recommend  to  the  several  colonies  to  give  a 
currency  to  such  securities."1  In  a  letter  to  the  Continental 
Congress,  adopted  the  same  day  by  the  Provincial  Congress, 
the  new  financial  step  was  spoken  of  as  "the  only  measure 
which  we  could  have  recourse  to  for  supporting  our  forces;" 
and  their  co-operation  was  asked  "  in  rendering  our  measures 
effectual,  by  giving  our  notes  currency  through  the  con- 
tinent."2 On  May  9,  the  receiver-general  was  directed  "  to 
give  public  notice  of  the  resolve,  lately  passed  by  this  Con- 
gress, for  borrowing  money  on  the  credit  of  the  colony,  and 
assign  certain  time  and  place  when  he  will  attend  that  busi- 
ness."3 Not  long  thereafter  it  became  necessary  for  the 
Congress  to  appoint  a  special  committee  "  to  inquire  where 
the  treasurer  may  procure  money  for  the  muster  masters  to 
supply  the  soldiers  with  advance  pay."4  The  situation,  how- 
ever, seems  not  to  have  improved,  and  on  May  24  the  Con- 
gress issued  to  the  inhabitants  of  Massachusetts  an  address5 
dealing  with  this  matter  of  a  public  loan.  Reference  was 
made  to  their  readiness,  already  shown,  "  to  supply,  on  the 
credit  of  the  colony,  many  necessary  articles  for  the  use  of 
the  army,"  but  the  army  needed  a  large  supply  of  "  every 
article  necessary  for  the  most  effectual  military  operations," 
and  if  they  should  "  fail  herein,  it  may  prove  ruinous  and 
destructive  to  the  community,  whose  safety,  under  God,  de- 
pends upon  their  vigorous  exertions."  They  urge  that  all 
money  "which  you  can  spare  from  the  necessary  supplies  of 
your  families,"  be  invested  in  the  new  six  per  cent,  notes; 
and  to  possible  lenders  it  is  suggested  "  that  there  are  now 
no  ways  of  improving  money  in  trade,  and  that  there  is  the 
greatest  probability,  that  the  other  colonies  will  give  a  ready 
currency  to  the  notes,  which  will  render  them,  in  one  respect 

1  Journal  of the  Provincial  Congress,  185.         2  Ibid.,  189.  8  Ibid.,  207. 

*May  18,  1775.     Ibid.,  238.  5  Ibid.,  255,  256. 


1  5  7]  G °  VERX^IENT  IN  MASSA  CHUSE TTS  !  t  n 

at  least,  on  a  better  footing  than  any  notes  heretofore  issued 
in  this  colony."  The  appropriate  moral  plea  was  urged,  and 
the  prospect  of  ruin  arising  from  "  undue  caution  "  was  sug- 
gested ;  but  it  was  all  in  vain.  The  efforts  of  the  Provincial 
Congress  to  exchange  its  two  year  six  per  cents,  for  solid 
cash  were  of  no  avail;  resources  were  not  thus  acquired,  and 
-of  necessity  a  further  step  was  taken. 

The  Provincial  Congress  now  took  an  even  bolder  course, 
and  aimed  to  supply  for  the  province  a  paper  currency,  com- 
posed of  the  notes  or  bills  of  credit  of  the  Congress,  its 
promises  to  pay,  issued  not  in  return  for  a  money  loan,  but, 
commonly,  for  services  and  supplies.  Thus,  on  May  15, 
1775,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  report  a  resolve  "for 
supplying  the  soldiers  with  two  twenty  shilling  bills  each,  for 
a  month's  advance  pay;"1  and  five  days  thereafter  the  Con- 
gress resolved  that  the  receiver-general  should  issue,  on  the 
credit  of  the  colony  and  for  the  advance  pay  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts army,  notes  in  denominations  ranging  from  six 
to  twenty  shillings  and  in  total  amount  not  exceeding 
j£26,ooo.2  The  notes  were  to  be  dated  May  25,  1775, 
and  were  to  be  payable  May  25,  1776,  with  six  per  cent,  in- 
terest. On  the  face  of  the  notes  it  was  stated  that  they  were 
to  be  received  in  all  payments  at  the  treasury,  and  this 
was  reinforced  by  the  resolution  of  the  Congress  that  the 
notes  "  shall  be  received  in  all  payments  in  this  colony,  and 
no  discount  or  abatement  shall  be  made  thereon,  in  any  pay- 
ment, trade,  or  exchange  whatsoever."  This  policy,  then, 
adopted  in  the  closing  days  of  the  second  Provincial  Congress, 
may  explain  in  part  the  position  of  the  Congress  and  its 
exercise  of  powers.  In  a  similiar  way,  after  two  preliminary 
votes,3  a  committee  report  was  adopted,  July  7,  1775,  pro- 
viding for  the  issue  of  ^"30,000  in  bills  of  credit  of  small  de- 

1  Journal  of  the  Prozincial  Congress,  228.  2  Hid.,  246. 

3  Of  June  30  and  July  6. 


Ijj8  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [l$& 

nominations,  to  pay  those  who  had  "supplied  small  articles" 
and  had  been  "employed  in  the  service  of  this  colony,   .   .   ."I 

Creating  thus  a  provincial  currency,  the  Congress  went 
still  further  in  adding  to  the  amount  of  circulation  thus  se- 
cured the  paper  currency  of  the  other  colonies.  Thus  after 
considerable  preliminary  discussion2  it  was  ordered3  that  the 
paper  notes  of  all  the  allied  colonies  should,  at  specified 
rates,  be  a  "good  and  sufficient  tender  for  the  payment  of 
all  debts,"  and  should  "  be  received  into  the  public  treasury 
of  this  colony  without  any  discount  or  allowance  whatever." 
The  element  of  depreciation  had  already  attracted  much  at- 
tention,4 and  any  one  who  even  asked  a  discount  or  a  premium 
in  connection  with  any  of  the  paper  in  question  was  to  be 
"deemed  an  enemy  to  the  country,"  and  all  local  committees 
were  enjoined  to  discover  and  report  all  such  opponents  of 
the  Congress,  that  either  that  body  or  the  subsequent  as- 
sembly might  "  take  order  thereon  as  to  them  shall  seem 
meet."  This  legislation  was  continued  on  July  I,5  when  the 
Congress  directed  the  receiver-general  to  pay  all  orders  or 
drafts  upon  the  treasury,  unless  specifically  calling  for  silver 
or  gold,  in  such  notes  or  bills  of  credit  of  the  other  colonies 
as  were,  by  the  earlier  act,  made  receivable  at  the  public 
treasury. 

The  Committee  of  Safety  had  already  assumed  the  power 
to  expand  further  the  currency  of  the  province  when  helpers 
from  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  came  to  Massachusetts 
supplied  only  with  the  paper  currencies  of  their  respective 
colonies.  It  was  then  resolved,  May  I,  1775,  that  thereafter 
the  paper  currencies  of  those  two  colonies  should  be  re- 
ceived in  all  payments  in  Massachusetts,  at  the  same  rate  as 
in  the  colony  of  issue.6     At  the  same  time  tentative  con- 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  464,  465. 

2  Cf.  Ibid.,  299,  300,  301,  305,  320,  410.  3  June  28,  1775;   Ibid.,  415,  416. 
4  Cf.  Ibid.,  300.                   *  Ibid.,  437.                 6  Ibid.,  530. 


159]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  tcq 

sideration  was  given  to  the  possibility  likewise  of  making  the 
paper  currencies  of  all  colonies  receivable  for  all  debts, 
private  as  well  as  pubic.  The  nature  of  the  situation,  how- 
ever, had  been  defined;  and  the  complete  control  of  the 
Provincial  Congress,  and  of  its  Committee  of  Safety,  over 
provincial  finance  had  been  successfully  asserted. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  exercise  of  powers 
so  important  was  accompanied  by  the  direct  and  complete 
control  of  the  less  important  branches  of  provincial  finance. 
Minor  contracts,  subsidies,  salaries,  even  in  detail,  came 
under  the  immediate  action  both  of  the  committee  and  of 
the  Congress.  Official  bonds,  vouchers,  and  claims  came 
within  their  cognizance.  The  process  and  the  control  both 
of  the  acquisition  and  of  the  disposal  of  public  funds,  and 
the  many  minor  powers  incident  thereto,  figured  among  the 
recognized  functions  of  the  Provincial  Congress. 

§  6.    Relations  with  the  Continental  Congress 

The  position  of  the  Provincial  Congress  can  be  further  de- 
fined by  a  review  of  its  relations  with  the  Continental  Con- 
gress and  of  its  attitude  relative  to  intercolonial  affairs.  As 
already  stated,  the  call  for  the  first  Continental  Congress  had 
issued  from  the  house  of  representatives  at  Salem  in  the 
preceding  June.  By  the  same  body  the  delegates  of  Massa- 
chusetts had  been  appointed,  and  by  it,  as  well,  had  pro- 
vision for  their  expenses  been  made.  The  delegation  thus 
appointed  had  joined  without  hesitation  in  the  deliberations 
of  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia.  They  there  met  delegates 
appointed  by  a  general  assembly,  others  appointed  by  a 
house  of  representatives,  still  others  named  by  a  provincial 
convention,  by  a  provincial  committee,  or  by  an  even  less 
authoritative  and    representative  constituency.1     The   pecu- 

1  Cf.  "The  Censor,"  March  5,  1776,  "To  the  Apologist:"  "  Look  around  you, 
and  you  will  see  Delegates  in  Congress  .  .  .  whom  the  free  choice  of  the  people 


I  go  W  OM  PR  O  VIXCIAL   TO  COMMONWEAL  TH  \\6o 

liarity  of  the  situation  was  shown  further  in  the  indiscrimi- 
nate manner  in  which,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  continental 
body,  an  assembly,  a  convention,  a  congress,  or  a  committee 
was  recognized  as  the  representative  of  the  population  oc- 
cupying the  territory  of  what  had  been,  and  was  still  for 
a  time  a  province.  The  course  of  the  Massachusetts  de- 
legation was  characteristic.  They  had  been  appointed  by 
one  body  of  legislators,  meeting  under  royal  authority;  they 
reported,  apparently  with  little  question  of  the  propriety  of 
their  action,  to  a  distinct  body,  called  with  the  sanction  of 
the  towns  and  acting  as  their  responsible  representative,  al- 
though a  body  in  its  assumptions  nothing  less  than  revolu- 
tionary. In  the  Provincial  Congress,  November  24,  1774,  it 
was  resolved :  "  That  the  chairman  of  the  committee  from 
this  province  who  were  members  of  the  Continental  Congress, 
be  desired  to  report  the  proceedings  of  said  Congress."1 
Accordingly  the  chairman  of  this  committee  "  appointed  by 
this  province,"  at  once  reported  "  that  they  had  attended 
that  service ;  that  the  Congress  had  taken  into  consideration 
the  state  of  the  colonies,  and  that  he  had  a  journal  of  their 
whole  proceedings,  which  he  would  lay  on  the  table."  The 
proceedings  of  the  Philadelphia  body  were  then  read,  and 
the  declaration  of  rights,  the  statement  of  grievances,  and 
the  "  association  "  were  referred  to  a  committee  of  seven,2  in- 
cluding the  Warrens,  Hawley,  and  Gerry.  The  committee 
thus  appointed  reported  December  1,  but  the  report  was 
subjected  to  amendment,  and  was  not  adopted  until  Decem- 
ber 5,  when  in  it  was  incorporated  the  result  of  further  action 
by  the  Congress. 

On  November  30  the  question  before  the  Congress  as  fixed 

would  not  admit  in  our  Committee  of  Inspection,  not  to  say  into  the  House  of 
Assembly."  4  American  Archives,  V.,  72.  Cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  893-898,  900,  901, 
906;   II.,  1820-1824. 

1  yournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  49.  2  Ibid.,  50. 


1 6 1  ]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSETTS  l  ft  l 

by  vote  of  the  preceding  day,  was  the  expediency  of  adopting 
the  recommendation  of  the  recent  Continental  Congress  for 
the  appointment  of  a  second  similar  body  to  meet  at  Phila- 
delphia, May  10,  1775.  An  affirmative  response  was  given, 
and  the  size  of  the  delegation  was  fixed  at  five;1  two  days 
later  the  election  was  held.2  This  choice  was  reaffirmed 
on  December  5,  when  in  connection  with  a  hearty  endorse- 
ment of  the  continental  "  association  "  and  declaration  of 
rights,  the  powers  of  the  new  delegation  were  stated  as  being 
"  to  concert,  direct,  and  order  such  further  measures  as  shall 
to  them  appear  to  be  best  calculated  for  the  recovery  and 
establishment  of  American  rights  and  liberties,  and  for  re- 
storing harmony  between  Great  Britain  and  the  colonies."3 

The  first  Provincial  Congress  also  appointed  a  committee 
to  determine  what  allowance  for  services  and  expenses 
should  be  made  to  the  delegates  to  the  Continental  Con- 
gress of  September,  thus  presuming,  in  an  important  mat- 
ter, to  assume  the  responsibilities  of  the  royal  house  of 
representatives.4  In  the  address  issued  to  its  constituents 
shortly  after,  on  December  10,  the  Congress  recognized  that 
the  Continental  Congress  had  over  the  Provincial  Congress 
such  authority  as  the  latter  exercised  over  the  towns.5 
Thus  plainly  did  the  first  local  congress  accept  the  situation, 
and  such  it  had  by  implication  done  even  before  it  had  taken 
any  of  the  steps  mentioned  in  this  review.  So  early,  in- 
deed, had  it  felt  the  desirability  of  gaining  approbation  at 
Philadelphia,  that  on  October  29  the  Congress  had  requested 

1  jfournal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  53. 

2  The  delegation  consisted  of  John  Hancock,  Thomas  Cushing,  Samuel  Adams, 
John  Adams,  and  Robert  Treat  Paine.     Ibid.,  55. 

3 Ibid.,  57.     This  report  was  ordered  published  for  distribution  to  all  towns  and 
districts  in  the  province.     Ibid.,  58.      Cf.  Ibid.,  66. 

4  Such  a  committee  was  appointed  December  7,  1774.     Ibid.,  61. 
bIbid.,  71. 


IT 


:  62  FR OM  PR  O  VINCIAL  TO  C0AIA1  OA  WEAL  TH  [  r  g2 

the  Committee  of  Safety  "  to  write  to  the  Continental  Con- 
gress, showing  them  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  our  pro- 
ceedings, and  enclose  them  a  copy  of  our  votes  and  reso- 
lutions."1 Such  an  act,  while  in  itself  not  connected  with 
the  important  events  which  occurred  later,  nevertheless  sug- 
gests in  a  crude  form  their  conception  of  the  relation  of  the 
two  bodies  in  question.  This  conception  was  developed  and 
defined  by  the  first  Congress  in  the  action  indicated ;  it  was 
more  strikingly  prominent  during  the  period  of  the  second 
Congress. 

That  body,  on  April  12,  resolved  that  a  committee  of 
correspondence  should  be  appointed  in  each  county,  whose 
duty  it  should  be  to  receive  from  the  various  town  com- 
mittees their  reports  on  the  execution  of  the  continental 
hd  provincial  plans;2  it  later,  in  its  address  to  the  people  of 
Great  Britain,  took  occasion  to  explain  its  steps  therein  by 
the  fact  that  the  Continental  Congress  was  not  in  session  and 
that  an  early  account  was  necessary;3  and  not  long  after  the 
skirmish  at  Lexington  it  appealed  to  the  body  about  to  meet 
at  Philadelphia  "with  the  most  respectful  submission,  whilst 
acting  in  support  of  the  course  of  America,  to  request  the 
direction  and  assistance  of  your  respectable  assembly."4  The 
appeal  was  significant ;  it  was  accompanied  by  copies  of  the 
address  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  of  the  letter  to  the 
agent,  Franklin,  and  of  the  depositions  relative  to  the  events 
of  April  19.  The  creation  of  a  provincial  debt  was  explained, 
the  military  exposure  of  the  province  was  emphasized,  and 
insistence  was  placed  upon  the  need  of  a  powerful  American 
army  "as  the  only  mean  left  to  stem  the  rapid  progress  of 
a  tyrannical  ministry."5  Of  the  creation  of  a  provincial 
force  they  say,  "The  sanguinary  zeal  of  the  ministerial  army, 
to  ruin   and  destroy   the   inhabitants  of  this  colony,   in   the 

1  "Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  42.  2  Ibid.,  139. 

3  April  26,  1775.     Ibid.,  154.  *  May  3,  1775;   Ibid.,  187.  b  Ibid.,  188. 


I63"l  GOVERNMENT  IX  MASSACHUSETTS  ^ 

opinion  of  this  congress,  hath  rendered  the  establishment  of 
an  army  indispensably  necessary."  The  raising  of  a  pro- 
vincial army  without  reference  to  the  continental  body  was 
significantly  explained  when  they  said  that  the  "  sudden 
exigency  of  our  public  affairs  precluded  the  possibility  of 
waiting   for    your    direction    in   these    important    measures ; 

The  development  of  their  relations  in  the  domain  of  military 
affairs  has  been  indicated  already;  in  the  succeeding  section 
some  attention  will  be  given  to  the  relations  of  the  Provincial 
and  Continental  Congresses  in  the  matter  of  governmental  re- 
form. It  is  upon  these  two  points  that  the  relations  of  the 
two  bodies  were  especially  significant  and  typical  as  illus- 
trating the  manner  in  which  the  Provincial  Congress  con- 
sciously acted  upon  the  assumption  that  its  authority  was 
less  than  that  of  the  continental  body,  and  that  its  acts  were 
to  be  strictly  subordinated  to  those  of  that  assembly.  It  was 
a  subordination,  to  be  sure,  based  strictly  upon  the  recog- 
nition of  advice  and  recommendations,  but  it  was  made  ef- 
fective, nevertheless,  through  that  agreement  of  interests  and 
unity  of  plan  which  gave  to  advice  the  force  of  command. 
It  must  be  recognized,  furthermore,  that  such  subordination, 
in  the  months  of  which  we  are  speaking,  was  expedient  and 
even  essential  to  success  ;  that  such  a  situation  was  recognized 
by  the  colonists,  and  that,  in  consequence,  the  relations  of 
provincial  and  continental  bodies  were  far  different  in  the 
early  years  of  Henry's  "all  American"  enthusiasm  from 
what  they  were  even  a  few  years  after  the  beginning  of  war- 
fare. Naturally,  such  reaction  against  centralization  had  not 
appeared  during  the  months  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  so 
that  the  description  of  its  relations  with  the  Continental 
Congress  needs  no  qualification  respecting  the  degree  of 
subordination.  The  completeness  of  this  supremacy  of  the 
new  national  body  might  be  readily  emphasized  by  carefully 


1 64  FROM  PROVINCIAL    TO  COMMONWEALTH  [,64 

tracing  its  activity  along  less  important  lines  and  in  regard 
to  various  matters  of  detail.  Consideration  of  such,  however, 
would  afford  little  of  special  significance,  and  would  serve 
merely  to  furnish  additional  illustration  of  the  nature  of  the 
relations  already  indicated. 

§  7.    The  Change  of  Government 

The  Provincial  Congress  was,  above  all,  an  expedient.  Its 
mission  was  purely  temporary,  and  its  course  was  accom- 
panied by  repeated  efforts  towards  a  permanent  organization 
of  government.  That  it  was  at  no  distant  time  to  be  super- 
seded by  another  representative  body,  the  members  of  the 
Congresses  themselves  realized  ;  throughout  their  work  they 
recognized  the  supreme  authority  of  the  people  and  their 
own  transitory  and  dependent  position.  The  occasion  of 
the  first  Congress,  its  basis,  organization,  and  the  exercise  of 
powers  by  itself  and  its  successors,  have  been  indicated. 
The  further  development  necessitates  some  statement  of  the 
series  of  events  which  ended  with  the  disappearance  of  that 
body.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  even  during  the  sum- 
mer of  1774,  proposals  had  been  made  to  establish  as  the 
constitution  of  the  rapidly  developing  commonwealth  the  old 
colonial    charter    of    the  seventeenth  century.'      Other,  and 

1  Cf.  Petersham  letter,  April  3,  1773;  Revolutionary  Corresp.,  III.,  603,  Ban- 
croft Collection. 

Cf.  Joseph  Warren,  Boston,  September  12,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams:  "Many 
among  us  and  almost  all  in  the  western  countys  are  for  taking  up  the  old  Form 
of  Government  according  to  the  first  Charter."  Autograph  Letters  of  Joseph 
Warren,  Bancroft  Collection.  The  letter  is  printed,  with  slight  alterations,  in 
Frothingham,  IJfe  of  Warren,  375,  376. 

Thomas  Young,  Boston,  September  4,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams,  Philadelphia: 
"  By  all  our  advices  from  the  westward  the  Body  of  the  people  are  for  resuming 
the  old  Charter,  and  organizing  a  government  immediately.  .  .  .  Major  Hawley 
is  so  strongly  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  resuming  the  Old  Charter  that  he 
declares  that  if  the  four  Mew  England  Governments  alone  adopt  the  measure  he 
will  venture  his  life  to  carry  and  defend  it  against  the  whole  force  of  Great 
Britain,  in  case  she  resents  it."     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 


165]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  ^c 

more  numerous,  suggestions  had  been  to  the  effect  that  the 
people  should  take  as  their  frame  of  government  the  pro- 
vincial charter  of  1691,  suitably  modified  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  new  constitutional  relations.1  The  need 
of  prompt  and  effective  action  rendered  it  scarcely  feasible, 
if  not,  indeed,  unwise,  to  attempt  suddenly  to  subject  a  revo- 
lutionary body  to  a  constitution  that  would  impose  the  for- 
malities and  restraints  of  peaceful  conditions.  The  difficulties 
of  such  a  step  were  increased  by  the  strong  influence  exer- 
cised over  the  popular  mind  by  the  "natural  rights"  phil- 
osophy and  by  the  trend  toward  a  "  state  of  nature." 
Heightened  individualism  and  a  morbid  craving  for  some 
tangible  experience  of  this  blessed  "  state  of  nature  "  pre- 
cluded, until  that  state  had  been  approached,  all  possibility 
of  a  higher  type  of  organization.  Once  reduced,  in  the 
months  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  to  the  crudest  forms  of 
administration  which  were  safely  applicable,  both  leaders 
and  people  consciously  recognized  the  need  of  a  basis  of 
government  more  truly  adapted  to  the  population.  Toward 
such  there  appeared  a  distinct  effort,  and  the  result  was  the 
successful  termination  of  the  strictly  transitional  period 
through  the  adoption  of  an  element  which  was  lacking  in  the 
character  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  that  of  a  written  instru- 
ment as  the  basis  of  government. 

An  unsuccessful  effort  to  return  to  the  former  constitutional 
system  was  early  made  in  the  attempt  to  establish  by  the  co- 
operation of  the  "  May  "councillors,  a  bicameral  legislature.2 

1  And,  further,  Cf.  Benj.  Akin,  Dartmouth,  July  29,  1774,  to  Samuel  Adams: 
"and  when  ever  affairs  come  to  be  Settled;  it  Would  be  Best  for  us  to  form  a 
New  Charter  for  ourselves,  that  will  be  most  agreeable  to  us;  .  .  .  ."  Revolu- 
tionary Corresp.,  III.,  277,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  On  October  27,  1774,  a  motion  to  invite  Samuel  Danforth  to  attend  was 
defeated.  He  had  been  chosen  to  the  council  in  May,  1774,  and  had  not  been 
negatived  by  Gov.  Gage.  Of  that  council  Gage  had  negatived  13  out  of  28.  It 
was  now  voted  to  ask  the  attendance  of  12  of  those  whom  he  had  not  negatived. 


!66  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \\Q)6 

On  the  day  when  the  formal  invitation  was  extended  to 
those  who,  it  was  thought,  might  still  form  an  upper  chamber, 
a  committee,  consisting  of  Major  Hawley,  Mr.  Cushing,  and  Mr. 
Gerry,  was  appointed  to  report  a  resolve  "  relative  to  an  equal 
representation  of  the  province  in  Congress  at  the  next  meeting 
thereof."1  In  the  first  Provincial  Congress,  somewhat  later, 
a  report  was  considered  from  the  committee  on  the  state  of 
the  province,  relative  to  assuming  civil  government,  but  it 
was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table.2  On  the  same  day  the  Con- 
gress was  dissolved,  an  election  of  a  second  and  similar  Pro- 
vincial Congress  was  called,  and  the  franchise  for  that  body 
was  granted  to  "  such  only  as  are  qualified  by  law  to  vote  for 
representatives  in  the  general  assembly,  .  .  .  "3  Such  oppor- 
tunity for  popular  action,  even  in  so  troublesome  times,  was 
deliberately  allowed,  since  it  was  known  that  "  many  states 
have  been  taught  by  fatal  experience,  that  powers  delegated 
by  the  people  for  long  periods  have  been  abused  to  the  en- 
dangering the  public  rights  and  liberties,"  and  since  the 
members  of  the  Congress  considered  that  they  had  been 
chosen  when  the  public  was  "  not  apprehensive  that  the 
business  necessary  to  be  done  would  require  their  attendance 
for  any  long  time.  .    .    .  "4     A  distinction  with  reference  to 

It  was  also  voted  on  October  27,  that  John  Erving  and  Jeremiah  Powell,  both  of 
whom  also  had  escaped  the  royal  negative  in  May,  should  be  invited  to  attend, 
"upon  its  being  evident  that  they  had  not  accepted,  and  upon  their  having  given 
full  assurances  that  they  would  not  accept,  of  their  commissions  as  mandamus 
counsellors,  .  .   .  ."     Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  36,  37. 

On  the  next  day  it  was  voted  that  fourteen  of  these  "  constitutional  members 
of  his  majesty's  council  of  this  colony,  by  the  royal  charter  chosen  to  said  office 
last  May  session,  be  desired  to  give  their  attendance  at  the  next  meeting  of  this 
Congress  upon  adjournment,  that  this  1  ody  may  have  the  benefit  of  their  advice 
upon  the  important  matters  that  may  then  come  under  consideration."  Ibid.,  40. 
Cf.  Ibid.,  48-5 1 . 

October  28,  1774;   Hid.,  40. 

2  December  10,  1774;   Ibid.,  72. 

3  Ibid.,  73.  *  Ibid.,  73. 


l6j~\  GO VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  T  fiy 

tenure  of  mandate  appeared  in  the  election  of  the  new  Con- 
gress for  a  stated  term,  and  as  the  30th  May1  drew  near,  the 
danger  of  a  legislative  interim  increased,2  and  steps  were 
taken  on  May  5  for  the  election  of  a  third  Congress,  to  meet 
May  31,  and  to  be  composed  of  as  large  delegations  as  each 
town  and  district  should  determine.  They  should  be  ch'osen, 
as  previously,  by  those  legally  qualified  to  vote  for  represen- 
tatives, and  should  continue  in  power  for  six  months.3  On  the 
day  after  these  votes  an  effort  at  reorganization  was  made,  by 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  seven  to  report  a  resolu- 
tion "  containing  a  reconsideration  of  the  resolve  passed  yes- 
terday, respecting  the  choice  of  delegates  for  a  new  Congress, 
so  far  as  to  determine  what  towns  should  send  members,  and 
how  many  members  each  town  and  district  ought  to  send."4 
Such  a  check,  however,  upon  the  process  of  renewal  was 
rejected ;  the  vote  was  reconsidered  as  soon  as  passed  ;  and 
there  followed  the  less  harmful  step,  unrestricted  as  to 
time  or  effect,  of  the  appointment  of  a  new  committee 
of  five  with  the  general  duty,  "  to  take  into  consideration  an 
equal  representation  of  this  colony,  and  report  thereon." 
Before  any  such  report  could  be  presented  more  radical 
action  was  taken  by  the  Congress  relative  to  the  reformation 
of  government.5  On  May  12,  1775,  it  was  moved  first  that 
the  "  sense  "  of  the  Congress  should  be  taken  on  the  ques- 
tion :      "  Whether  there  is  now  existing  in  this  colony  a  neces- 

1  The  Congress  was  elected  to  serve  "  until  the  Tuesday  next  preceding  the  last 
Wednesday  of  May  next,  and  no  longer;  .  .  .  ."  Journal  of  the  Provincial 
Congress,  73. 

2As  to  the  possibility  of  the  election  of  a  General  Court  on  the  basis  of  writs 
ssued  by  General  Gage  and  the  loss  of  such  possibility  see  pp.  63-65. 

sCf.  Ibid,   195,  196.  *  Ibid.,  198. 

5  On  May  5,  1775,  a  resolution  of  the  Committee  of  Safety  was  presented,  "  giv- 
ing it  as  their  opinion,  that  government,  in  full  form,  ought  to  be  taken  up  imme- 
diately," and  the  consideration  was  appointed  for  May  9.  Ibid.,  197.  Cf.  Ibid., 
536.     On  May  8,  the  consideration  was  postponed  until  May  12.     Ibid.,  207. 


!68  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \_\6% 

sity  of  taking  up,  and  exercising  the  powers  of  civil  govern- 
ment, in  all  its  parts."1  The  question  was  then  considered  in 
the  committee  of  the  whole  house,  Joseph  Warren  acting  as 
chairman.  Their  report  to  the  Congress  was  to  the  effect 
"  that  a  committee  be  raised,  for  the  purpose  of  reporting  to 
the  Congress  an  application  to  the  Continental  Congress  for 
obtaining  their  recommendation  for  this  colony  to  take  up 
and  exercise  civil  government,  as  soon  as  may  be,  and  that 
the  committee  be  directed  to  ground  the  application  on  the 
necessity  of  the  case  ;"'  the  report  was  promptly  accepted  by 
a  large  majority,  and  the  preparation  of  the  application  was  en- 
trusted to  a  committee  of  seven,  Messrs  Joseph  Warren,2 
Church,  Gerry,  James  Warren,  Sullivan,  Danielson,  and  Lin- 
coln.3 By  this  act  a  distinctly  new  course  was  taken  by  the  Con- 
gress ;  its  adoption  and  its  development  were  equally  signifi- 
cant. On  May  i6the  special  committee  made  its  report,  which 
was  carefully  considered  and  accepted.  This  involved  the  im- 
mediate despatch  to  the  Continental  Congress  of  a  memorial 
which  should  state  the  circumstances  of  Massachusetts  with 
reference  to  governmental  and  military  affairs  and  should 
allude  to  the  increasing  probability  that  by  the  sword  alone 
could  a  decision  of  the  question  at  issue  between  themselves 
and  the  motherland  be  reached.  And  inasmuch  as  this  ques- 
tion, they  continued,  "  equally  affected  our  sister  colonies 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  219. 

2 On  May  14,  1775,  Joseph  Warren  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams:  "  We  are  here 
waiting  for  advice  from  the  Continental  Congress  respecting  our  taking  up  gov- 
ernment. We  cannot  think,  after  what  we  have  suffered  for  a  number  of  years, 
that  you  will  advise  us  to  take  up  that  form  established  by  the  last  charter,  as  it 
contains  in  it  the  seeds  of  despotism,  and  would,  in  a  few  years,  bring  us  again 
into  the  same  unhappy  situation  in  which  we  now  are."  Frothingham,  Life  of 
Warren,  483.  On  May  16,  Warren  wrote  to  Arthur  Lee,  then  in  London  :  "  I 
suppose,  before  I  hear  from  you  again,  a  new  form  of  government  will  be  estab- 
lished in  this  colony.  Great  Britain  must  now  make  the  best  she  can  of  Amer- 
ica."    Ibid.,  488.     This  is  printed  in  4  American  Archives,  II.,  619,  620. 

s  Journal  of  Ike  Provincial  Congress,  219,  220. 


1 6g ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE ITS  !  6g 

and  us,  we  have  declined,  though  urged  thereto  by  the  most 
pressing  necessity,  to  assume  the  reins  of  civil  government,"1 
without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Continental  Congress. 
The  raising  of  an  army  more  clearly  revealed  the  need  of  the 
situation,  for  in  the  current  political  philosophy  "  the  sword 
should,  in  all  states,  be  subservient  to  the  civil  powers,"  and 
the  Massachusetts  men  confessed  a  tremor  "at  having  an 
army,  although  consisting  of  our  own  countrymen,  established 
here,  without  a  civil  power  to  provide  for  and  control  it." 
Thus  appealing  to  and  recognizing  "  the  representative 
body  of  the  continent,"  they  asked  its  most  explicit  advice, 
with  reference  to  the  assumption  and  exercise  of  powers  of 
civil  government,  which  they  thought  "  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  salvation  of  our  country;"  and  pledged  their  prompt 
submission  to  such  general  plans  as  might  be  adopted  by  the 
Continental  Congress.2  A  long  step  had  been  taken  not 
only  toward  the  nationalization  of  the  new  general  govern- 
ment, but  also  toward  the  local  reorganization  in  Massa- 
chusetts. 

The  matter  thus  formulated  was  presented  to  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  on  June  2,  1775,  when  the  letter  of  the 
Massachusetts  Congress  was  read  and  ordered  to  lie  over  for 
further  consideration.3  On  the  same  day  Dr.  Church,  by 
vote  of  the  Congress,  appeared  before  that  body,  and  further 
communications  from  Massachusetts  were  laid  before  the 
Congress  by  its  president.4  On  the  next  day  the  Massa- 
chusetts letter  of  May  16  was  again   read  and  referred,  for 

1  yonrnal  of  the  Provi7icial  Congress,  230.  The  letter  is  printed  in  4  American 
Archives,  II.,  1842. 

2  On  the  same  day,  May  16,  it  was  determined  by  ballot  that  Dr.  Benj.  Church 
should  present  the  request.  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  232.  On 
July  9,  1775,  the  receiver  general  was  directed  to  pay  Dr.  Church,  ^"34: 
5  sb. :  2  d.,  "  in  fall  discharge  of  his  account  of  expenses  of  himself  and  servant, 
on  a  journey  to  Philadelphia,  in  May  last."     Ibid.,  479. 

3  yoarnal  of  the  Continental  Congress,  I.,  1 12.  *  Ibid.,  I.,   1 13. 


I  jO  FR  OM  PR  O  VI X CIA  L   TO  C  OMMON  WEAL  TH  \\*]0 

report,  to  a  committee,  chosen  by  ballot,  consisting  of  John 
Rutledge,  Johnson,  Jay,  Wilson,  and  Lee.1  To  allow  time 
for  committee  work,  no  further  session  of  the  Congress  was 
held  until  June  7,  when  the  special  committee  made  its  re- 
port. This  was  read,  ordered  to  lie  over  for  further  con- 
sideration,2 and  was  again  considered  two  days  later,  when 
the  Congress  finally  resolved  upon  the  nature  of  its  advice  to 
the  Massachusetts  Congress.3 

This  reply  of  the  Continental  Congress,  embodied  in  its  re- 
solution of  June  9,  1775,  was  significant  and  important. 
The  actual  situation  in  Massachusetts  was  fully  recognized 
and  endorsed.  It  was  declared  that  no  obedience  was  "  due 
to  the  act  of  parliament  for  altering  the  charter  of  the  colony 
of  Massachusetts  Bay,  nor  to  a  governor  and  lieutenant  gov- 
ernor, who"  would  "  not  observe  the  directions  of,  but  en- 
deavor to  subvert  that  charter;"4  and  the  radical  conclusion 
was  drawn  that  the  governor  and  lieutenant  governor  were  to 
be  considered  as  absent  and  their  offices  vacant.      They  re- 

1  Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  I,  1 13. 

2  Ibid.,  I.,  114.  *  Ibid.,  I.,  115. 

4  Ibid.,  I.,  115.  The  resolution  is  printed  in  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Con- 
gress, 359.     It  is  also  printed  in  4  American  Archives,  IT.,  1845. 

On  June  10,  1775,  Thomas  Cushing,  at  Philadelphia,  wrote  to  Joseph  Hawley : 
"  Inclosed  you  have  a  Vote  of  the  Congress  relative  to  our  Peoples  taking  up 
Government,  vvhich  I  apprehend  will  Correspond  with  yr  Sentiments.  A  motion 
was  made  in  Congress  that  advice  should  be  given  to  ye  present  provincial  Con- 
gress to  chuse  Councellors,  but  there  being  many  objections  to  it,  it  was  with- 
drawn. The  Person  that  made  ye  motion  observ'd  that  ye  choice  of  Representa- 
tives would  occasion  great  Delay— &  that  there  could  not  at  present  be  an  Equal 
Representation  as  Boston  would  not  be  permitted  by  the  General  to  chuse  Re- 
presentatives upon  this  Occasion — he  was  answered  that  the  Delay  would  not 
be  great,  that  it  was  best  to  adhere  as  near  to  ye  Charter  as  possible  &  not  to  vary 
from  it  but  in  case  of  absolute  necessity — that  as  to  the  Town  of  Boston  either 
the  present  Provincial  Congress  or  the  New  Assembly  could  easily  make  some 
provision  for  their  being  Represented  either  by  directing  the  late  Inhabitants  to 
meet  at  Cambridge  or  some  other  Town  &  chuse  their  Representatives  or  by 
divising  some  new  mode  of  Collecting  the  Voice  of  the  People  upon  this  Occa- 
sion."    Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 


!  7 1  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  Y  y  l 

cognized  that  there  was  no  council  and  that  the  executive 
was  directing  hostilities  against  those  whom  he  was  com- 
missioned to  protect.  In  such  a  situation  an  approximate 
conformity  to  the  spirit  and  substance  of  the  provincial 
charter  was  suggested.  To  effect  this  they  concluded  with 
the  recommendation  to  the  Provincial  Congress  to  write  to 
the  several  places  which  were  "  entitled  to  representation  in 
assembly,  requesting  them  to  choose  such  representatives  ; 
and  that  the  assembly,  when  chosen,  should  elect  counsel- 
lors;  which  assembly  and  council  should  exercise  the  powers 
of  government,  until  a  governor  of  his  majesty's  appoint- 
ment" should  "consent  to  govern  the  colony  according  to 
its  charter."  It  was  on  the  afternoon  of  the  memorable 
17th  June,  1775,  that  a  letter  of  President  John  Hancock 
was  received,  enclosing  the  resolution  in  question.1  On  the 
next  day,  Sunday,  a  messenger  was  sent  to  Dr.  Church  for 
the  letters  he  was  said  to  have  brought  from  Philadelphia.2 
Immediately  a  committee  of  seven,2  including  Major  Hawley, 
Col.  Warren,  Dr.  Church,  and  Col.  Otis,  was  appointed  to 
take  into  consideration,  among  other  things,  the  letter  of 
Hancock  and  the  resolution  of  the  Continental  Congress  as  to 
government.  The  committee  reported  on  Monday,  the  day 
on  which  James  Warren  was  chosen  president  of  the  Con- 
gress, "in  the  room  of  the  Hon.  Joseph  Warren,  Esq.,  sup- 
posed to  be  killed  in  the  late  battle  of  Bunker  Hill."3  Their 
report  was  read   and  debated,  but  its  further  consideration 

1  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  352. 

Cf.  Frothingham,  Rise  of  the  Repttblic,  441,  speaks  of  the  advice  as  "a  dis- 
appointment to  the  patriots,  who  desired  to  form  a  government  worthy  of  free- 
men, .  .  .  ." 

On  July  9,  1775,  James  Warren,  then  at  Watertown,  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams: 
"  When  are  we  to  see  all  the  Govts,  &  our  own  with  them  reformed  &  set  upon  a 
Good  Bottom.  We  look  for  such  an  Event."  Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collec- 
tion. 

""Ibid.,  353.  3 Ibid.,  3156. 


lj2  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [ty2 

postponed  "  until  Doct.  Church,  who  was  at  Philadelphia  at 
the  time  said  resolve  of  the  Continental  Congress  passed, 
shall  be  present."1  Such  seems  to  have  been  the  case  on 
the  succeeding  day,  when  he  was  placed  on  a  committee  of 
five  to  consider  some  method  by  which  it  would  be  possible 
for  the  late  inhabitants  of  Boston  and  Charlestown  to  vote  for 
representatives,  and  to  arrange  for  the  printing  and  distribu- 
tion both  of  the  resolve  of  June  9,  and  of  the  letter  to  the 
several  towns  of  Massachusetts  adopted  by  the  Congress  on 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  June  18.  The  contents  of  the 
Philadelphia  resolution  have  been  stated  ;  the  letter  now  ac- 
companying that  was  sent  out  to  the  boards  of  selectmen  in 
the  several  towns.  These  were  requested  to  appoint  an  elec- 
tion of  deputies,  in  which  the  suffrage  should  be  exercised  by 
all  freeholders  in  each  town  and  by  all  other  inhabitants 
therein  who  might  possess,  "  within  this  province  or  territory," 
a  freehold  estate  valued  at  40  shillings  per  annum  or  other 
estate  valued  at  .£40.  Each  town,  according  to  the  last  pro- 
vincial act  on  representation,  was  to  elect  one  or  more  free- 
holders, resident  in  such  town  ;  each  election  was  to  be  by  the 
"major  part"  of  the  electors  present  in  each  town  meeting; 
and,  finally,  the  term  of  this  new  body  was  to  extend  from 
July  19,  1775,  "until  the  end  of  the  day  next  preceding  the 
last  Wednesday  of  May  next,  if  necessary,  and  no  longer, 
.  .  ."2  The  meeting-house  in  Watertown  was  indicated  as 
the  place  of  assembling,  and  provision  was  made  that  each 
person  duly  elected  should  be  formally  notified  of  his  duties 
by  one  or  more  constables  of  his  town.  A  form  of  "  return" 
was  also  adopted  at  this  time,  in  which  should  be  reported, 
over  the  signatures  of  the  selectmen,  the  result  of  the  elec- 
tion under  their  charge,  and  to  which  should  be  appended 
the  statement  of  the  constable  that  the  person  named  in  the 
"  return "    as   elected    had    by   him   been    duly   notified    and 

'  Journal  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  357.  2  Ibid.,  359. 


*73] 


GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS 


summoned.  On  the  same  day,  June  20,  recognition  was  ac- 
corded in  a  letter  to  the  Continental  Congress,  to  the  "  com- 
passion, seasonable  exertion,  and  abundant  wisdom,"  of  that 
body,  and  the  assurance  was  given  by  the  Massachusetts 
men  that  they  would  apply  themselves  "  with  all  diligence, 
to  fulfil  your  benevolent  intentions,  and  establish  the  form  of 
government  recommended  by  your  honors;  that  so,  order 
and  government  may  be  restored  to  this  disturbed  com- 
munity."1 

The  elections  thus  called  were  held,  and  the  representatives 
then  elected  met  at  Watertown  on  the  appointed  day.2  The 
Provincial  Congress  meanwhile  remained  in  session,  sitting 
even  on  the  morning  of  July  19,  At  that  time  a  matter  of 
finance  was  referred  to  three  members  who  were  significantly 
"  directed,  in  case  they  cannot  report  to  this  Congress,  to 
make  report  to  the  next  House  of  Representatives."3  The 
use  of  terms  was  suggestive;  the  evolution  was  rapid,  and  in 
form  as  well  as  in  theory  it  was  practically  an  unbroken  de- 
velopment. The  Provincial  Congress,  after  the  action  indi- 
cated, voted  its  own  dissolution  ;  and  on  the  same  day  began 
the  session  of  the  newly  elected  and  newly  founded  General 
Court. 

1  Jouryial  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  365. 

2  In  the  meantime,  on  the  basis  of  a  report  by  Messrs.  Hawley,  Gerry,  and 
Fuller,  appointed  June  21,  it  was,  on  July  5,  1775,  resolved  that,  as  unforeseen 
events  might  render  the  holding  of  a  General  Court  at  Watertown  on  July  19,  un- 
safe and  "  very  improper,"  a  committee  of  five  should  have  power,  in  case  they, 
or  three  of  them,  "  judge  it  improper  or  unsafe,  that  such  general  assembly  should 
be  convened  at  the  said  Watertown,  at  the  time  aforesaid,  to  agree  upon,  and  de- 
termine, at  what  other  place  in  this  colony,  the  said  general  assembly  should  be 
convened;   .  .  ."     Ibid.,  369,  454. 

3  Ibid.,  501. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE    CHARTER  RESUMED 
§  I .  Provincial  Forms  in  the  Commonwealth 

THE  "resumption"  of  the  charter  of  1691  gave  to  the 
people  of  Massachusetts,  who  still  retained  their  former  local 
government,1  a  provincial  government  with  accustomed  forms. 
It  gave  them  what  in  the  ten  months  preceding  had  been  lack- 
ing, a  government  of  which  the  powers,  functions,  and  duties, 
were  to  an  extent  defined,  and  in  which,  as  well,  the  more 
important  processes  of  the  governing  bodies  were  stated. 
This,  as  has  been  said,  was  an  advance  toward  constitution- 
alism, although  in  form  it  was  a  retrogression ;  for  the  gov- 
ernment now  adopted  by  the  representatives  of  the  people, 
with  the  sanction  of  the  Continental  Congress,  was  a  charter 
framed  for  a  royal  province  and  not  for  a  democratic  com- 
monwealth. This  anomaly  was  not  such  in  theory  alone ; 
more  tangible  facts  and  even  ordinary  routine  made  it  plain 
that  the  instrument  could  not  long  serve  such  new  purposes. 
This  was  unavoidable  in  a  document  based,  for  instance,  on 
an  assumption  of  relations  with  an  external  and  superior 
power  having  an  immediate  and  vital  share  in  the  internal 
government  of  the  province.     Massachusetts  had  had,  to  be 

1  An  exception,  in  detail,  arose  from  the  presence  of  the  royal  forces.  Thus, 
the  General  Court,  February  8,  1776,  (Acts  of  1775— '76,  ch.  12),  moved  the  courts 
of  Suffolk  county  from  Boston  to  Dedham  and  Braintree,  and  further  enacted: 
"That  Dedham  shall  be  the  shire  town  of  the  county  of  Suffolk,  for  the  future." 
Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  455,  456.  This  act  was  repealed 
on  November  12,  1776,  (Acts  of  iyj6-'yj,  ch.  19),  when  Boston  was  re-established 
as  the  seat  of  the  Suffolk  courts.     Ibid.,  V.,  593,  594. 

174  ['74 


175]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  x  j  r 

sure,  a  large  share  of  administrative  independence,  and 
almost  all  the  functions  of  its  charter  government  were  such 
as  could  be  exercised  by  the  independent  action  of  the  local 
population.  An  important  exception,  in  which  the  influence 
of  an  outside  power  was  apparent,  was  the  provision  for  the 
appointment  of  the  executive  by  the  crown.  In  this  official 
was  vested  an  important  share  in  the  appointment  of  many 
officers,  both  judicial  and  executive,  while  he  also  pos- 
sessed essemial  powers  of  legislation,  as  well  as  powers 
of  a  judicial  and  executive  nature.  Strict  adherence  to  the 
charter  was  then  impossible  under  the  altered  circumstances, 
and  it  was  necessary  that  some  change  should  be  made. 
The  form  which  it  took,  was,  that,  when  the  charter  was  re- 
sumed, upon  the  council  of  twenty-eight,  which  formerly 
had  shared  with  the  governor  certain  of  his  executive  and 
judicial  functions,  all  the  duties  pertaining  to  the  executive 
office  were  conferred.1  By  means  of  this  modification  in  the 
provincial  charter  Massachusetts  secured  once  more  a  defi- 
nitely organized  form  of  government,  and  so  continued 
through  the  next  five  years,  a  period  stamped,  equally 
with  the  preceding,  as  one  of  transition.  Such  character 
was  plainly  given  to  it  by  the  pecularities  of  the  modified 
form  of  government.  These  modifications,  from  both  a 
theoretical  and  a  practical  point  of  view,  made  the  period  of 
its  use  one  of  slight,  even  if  uncertain,  length.2 

Under  the  new  arrangements  the  twenty-eight  members  of 
the  council,  by  a  majority  vote,  exercised  powers  of  a  legis- 

'A  list  of  the  members  of  the  house  and  of  the  council  of  1775— '76,  was 
printed  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1052,  July  24,  1775.  Lists  of  civil  officers  ap- 
pointed by  the  majority  of  the  council  were  printed  in  Ibid.,  no.  1062,  October 
2,  1775,  and  no.  1063,  October  9,  1775.  Cf.  Journal  of  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

'2The  town  of  Stoughton,  October  2,  1776,  in  a  vote  relative  to  a  new  constitu- 
tion, referred  to  the  state  as  "  at  present  Destitute  of  a  fixed  and  Established  form 
Government."     Mass.  Archives,  125:  156. 


!j6  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  \\j6 

lative,  an  executive  and  a  judicial  nature.1  This  fact,  al- 
though directly  contrary  to  theories  soon  to  be  strongly  ad- 
vanced, was  not  in  itself  a  bar  to  the  use  of  the  charter. 
The  governor  and  council  ordinarily  exercised  powers  thus 
varied  and  intermingled.  But  while  many  such  had  been 
exercised  by  them  jointly,  others  had  been  exercised  by  each 
independently.  This  was  especially  applicable  to  the  legis- 
lative process  in  which  the  members  of  the  council,  acting  as 
an  "  upper  house,"  would  pass  a  bill  in  their  legislative 
capacity,  which  would  then  come  before  the  governor  for 
his  action.  It  was  possible,  and  it  had  actually  occurred  in 
practice,  that  the  council,  as  a  branch  of  the  legislature, 
might  pass  a  bill,  and  that  a  part  of  the  body,  acting 
as  the  advisory  councillors  of  the  governor,  might  recom- 
mend its  rejection.  The  circumstance  was  abnormal ;  it 
was  even  more  so  when  the  same  body  of  men  were  in  a  po- 
sition both  to  act  upon  a  bill  in  a  legislative  capacity  and 
immediately  to  act  upon  it  as  an  executive.2  Practically, 
there  existed  a  bicameral  legislature,  of  which  the  upper 
house  was  chosen  by  the  lower  house,  and  by  this  annual 
choice  directly  controlled  by  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  so  that  well  might  Samuel  Adams  speak  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Massachusetts  as  being  "now  more  popular  than  it 
has  been  for  many  years  past."3 

1  It  is  significant  that  at  the  opening  of  each  session  of  the  General  Court  the 
council,  as  executive,  adhered  to  custom  and  sent  an  address  to  the  house.  One 
further  exercise  of  special  executive  powers  is  seen  in  the  calling  of  the  special 
session  of  August  5,  1777,  by  proclamation  of  the  council,  the  General  Court 
having,  on  July  8,  1777,  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  September. 
Journal  0/  the  House  of  Representatives. 

1  July  29,  1775,  the  House  in  a  vote  referred  to  the  "  Council,  in  capacity  of 
Governour  .  .  .  ."     4  American  Archives,  III.,  291. 

3  Samuel  Adams,  Philadelphia,  to  James  Warren,  November  5,  1775.  Adams 
Papers,  Bancroft  Collection.  Cf.  Proclamation  of  General  Court  of  January 
19-23,  1776:  "The  present  generation,  therefore,  may  be  congratulated  on  the 
acquisition  of  a  form  of  Government  more  immediately,  in  all  its  branches,  under 


177]  G ° VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CM U SETTS  xyy 

It  was  unavoidable  that,  from  a  theoretical  point  of  view, 
there  should  be  found  inconsistencies  and  anomalies  in  the 
use  of  such  a  charter.  The  assumption  of  such  forms  was 
what  seemed  the  wisest  move  at  a  time  when  acts  were 
largely  dependent  upon  expediency.  The  justification  of 
the  action  was  afforded  in  the  subsequent  maintenance  of 
peaceable  and  legal  procedure  during  the  years  when  efforts 
for  a  reorganization  of  government  were  being  vigorously 
promoted  and  warmly  opposed,  and  when  these  efforts  at- 
tained final  success  in  the  relinquishment  of  the  charter  under 
which  and  against  which  they  had  been  made.  That  such 
would  be  the  result  was  tolerably  clear  even  from  the  begin- 
ning. To  be  sure,  Adams,  in  the  letter  just  quoted,  had 
written  with  safe  qualification  :  "  Perhaps  the  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment now  adopted  and  set  up  in  the  Colony  may  be 
permanent."1  At  the  beginning,  doubtless,  no  difficulty 
would  be  experienced,  and  such  views  might  readily  prevail. 
Yet  in  the  routine  of  legislative  work  it  was  not  long  before 
the  disadvantages  arising  from  substituting  an  executive  body 
of  twenty-eight  for  a  single  executive  became  apparent.2 
Thus,  even  from  considerations  of  convenience,  the  new  ar- 
rangements were  early  condemned.  To  obtain  the  signa- 
tures of  a  majority  of  the  new  executive  body  for  all  public 

the  influence  and  control  of  the  people,  and,  therefore,  more  free  and  happy 
than  was  enjoyed  by  their  ancestors."  4  American  Archives,  IV.,  834.  Cf. 
Ibid.,  IV '.,  1 268-1 270.  Cf.  John  Adams,  July  10,  1776,  to  Abigail  Adams. 
Familiar  Letters  of  John  Adams,  198. 

1  Cf.  John  Adams,  Philadelphia,  May  27,  1776,  to  Abigail  Adams.     Ibid.,  17J. 

2  Cf.  Thomas  Hutchinson,  Boston,  February  23,  1774,  to  Israel  Williams,  upon 
his  trip  to  England  being  delayed  by  the  illness  of  the  lieutenant  governor;  for 
he  would  be  "charged  with  indiscretion  in  leaving  the  Govt  in  the  hands  of  the 
Council  though  they  should  be  allowed  to  be  the  best  men  we  have :  the  form  of 
Govt  which  has  a  head  consisting  of  28  parts  being  very  unfit  for  such  times  as 
these."  Letters  of  T.  Hutchinson  to  Israel  Willia?ns,  79-81,  Bancroft  Collec- 
tion. 


I  j  8  FR  OM  PR  0  VINCI  A  L   TO  COMMON  WE  A  LTH  ["  I  7  8 

documents  was  in  itself  a  task  of  no  small  annoyance.1  The 
insistence  upon  such  procedure  would  only  emphasize  its 
unnaturalness ;  its  illogical  character  was  illustrated  in  1778, 
when,  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  small-pox  in  Boston,  and 
to  the  difficulty  of  collecting  a  majority  of  the  council,  the 
General  Court  resolved  that  for  some  five  weeks  "  any  Seven 
of  the  Council  be,  and  hereby  are  Impowered  to  issue  & 
Sign  warrants  on  the  publick  Treasury,  and  allso  all  Acts 
Resolves  &  orders,  Passed  by  the  Two  Houses,  and  all  Such 
warrants  on  the  Treasury  and  any  other  thing,  Transacted, 
by  Seven  of  Said  Councill  be  &  hereby  is  declared  to  all 
Intents  &  Purposses,  as  Valid  as  if  the  Same  had  bin  Signd 
by  Fifteen  of  the  Councill,  until  the  Twentyeighth  of  May 
aforesd."2  Such  arrangements  served  no  good  purpose,  but 
were  rather  a  hindrance  to  good  administration,  and  fur- 
nished in  themselves  the  occasion  for  their  own  disappear- 
ance. 

Although  unsuited  to  the  situation  in  the  various  ways  of 
which  examples  have  been  suggested,  the  new  frame  of  gov- 
ernment marked  an  advance  over  uncontrolled  rule  by  Con- 
gress and  introduced  forms  already  familar  to  the  colonists. 
With  the  important  modification  indicated  the  forms  of  gov- 
ernment of  Massachusetts  for  this  short  period  were  identical 
with  those  of  the  earlier  provincial  period ; 3  such  statement 

1  Thus  of  the  Acts  of  1777-1778  one  is  signed  by  17,  one  by  16,  and  all  but  6 
of  the  others  by  15  of  the  council.     Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V. 

'l  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  S08 — reprinted  from  Mass. 
Archives,  205  :  218. 

3  Attention,  however,  should  be  called  to  the  procedure  in  connection  with  the 
organization  of  the  new  house  for  the  first  time.  The  speaker  of  the  house 
was  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  governor;  and  legally  a  house  without  a 
speaker  could  not  elect  a  council.  Cf.  James  Savage,  Constitution  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Boston,  1832,  P.  4.      Cf  Ibid.,  3. 

On  a  further  point  a  temporary  alteration  of  procedure  was  allowed.  The 
voters  of  Boston  were  allowed  to  vote  elsewhere  during  the  occupation  of  city  by 
the  enemy.     Thus,  on  November  21,  1775,  William  Cooper,  town  clerk  of  Bos- 


!  79]  GO  VERXMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  ,  ™ 

suffices  to  characterize  these  years  and  to  explain  their  place 
in  the  transitional  period.  It  was  during  them  that  prep- 
aration was  being  made  for  the  next  important  step,  and  aside 
from  what  was  done  in  that  direction,  little  of  the  legislative 
activity  of  the  time  need  be  considered.  That  little,  how- 
ever, was  important.  The  first  act2  passed  by  the  reestab- 
lished General  Court  confirmed  all  the  resolutions  and  trans- 
actions of  the  Provincial  Congresses  from  October  4,  1774  to 
July  20,  1775,  as  lawful  and  of  as  much  force  as  if  they  had 
been  passed  or  sanctioned  by  any  assembly  or  General  Court. 
The  journals  of  the  Congress  might  be  used  under  the  general 
issue  to  free  one  from  guilt  or  responsibility,  and  were  to  be- 
come matters  of  public  record. 

It  was  even  earlier  in  its  first  session  that  this  new  house 
formally  adopted  the  plan  already  sanctioned  by  the  Provin- 
cial Congress  for  the  exercise  of  executive  powers.  By  the 
provisions  of  the  charter,  whenever  the  governor  and  lieuten- 

ton,  issued  at  Watertown  a  notice  to  the  voters  of  Boston  to  meet  November  28, 
at  the  Watertown  Meeting-House,  according  to  the  vote  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives of  November  6,  and  to  choose  a  representative  to  sit  in  place  of 
Benjamin  Church,  who  had  been  expelled  from  the  house.  4  American  Archives, 
III.,  1629,  1630. 

As  io  the  location  of  the  General  Court  during  this  period,  it  may  here  be 
indicated  that  on  November  9,  1776,  an  adjournment  was  taken  at  Watertown, 
to  meet,  November  12,  in  the  State  House  at  Boston.  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1121, 
November  11,  1776. 

A  further  instance  of  irregular  procedure  appears  in  connection  with  the  col- 
lection of  the  tax  of  ^46,000  levied  by  Acts  of  1775 -'76,  ch.  6.  By  this  act  it 
was  provided  that  all  inhabitants  of  any  coast  town  except  Boston  and  Charles- 
town,  who  had  removed  to  other  towns  in  Massachusetts  since  December  I, 
1774,  should  be  assessed  by  the  assessors  of  the  towns  whence  removed.  It  was 
further  provided  that  the  fugitive  inhabitants  of  Boston  and  Charlestovvn  should 
be  rated  in  each  town  in  a  separate  list,  on  polls,  personal  estate,  and  business, 
"according  as  such  assessors  shall  judge  just  and  reasonable;  .  .  .  ."  Acts  and 
Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  435. 

'The  preamble  well  illustrates  the  preceding  period;  see  Acts  and  Resolves 
of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  415.  Charters  and  General  Laws  of  Mass.,  Boston, 
1814,  687,  688. 


!8o  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [  j  go 

ant-governor  were  absent  from  the  province  the  duties  of  the 
chief  executive  devolved  upon  the  majority  of  the  council. 
In  the  view  of  the  house  not  only  had  both  the  governor  and 
lieutenant-governor  absented  themselves  from  their  official 
posts,  but  they  had  definitely  refused  to  govern  the  province 
in  accordance  with  the  royal  charter.  The  represcnatives 
accordingly  resolved  that,  until  one  of  those  royal  officers 
shall  return  to  his  duty,  or  unt'l  "  some  Governour  shall  be 
appointed  to  govern  the  Province  according  to  the  Charter 
aforesaid,"  they  will  consider  the  majority  of  the  "  Constitu- 
tional Council"  as  the  "  Governour  of  this  Province,  and  will 
acquiesce  in  whatever  said  Council,  .  .  .  shall  constitution- 
ally do  in  such  capacity."1 

While  thus  offering  presumably  an  opportunity  for  recon- 
ciliation and  for  a  complete  resumption  of  earlier  forms  and 
relations,  the  house  showed  its  position  more  clearly  by  the 
prompt  passage  of  a  bill  providing  that  all  those  officers, 
both  civil  and  military,  who  held  office  by  virtue  of  a  com- 
mission granted  by  the  provincial  executive  power  "  before 
the  present  meeting  of  this  general  court,"  should  cease 
action  upon  such  authority  on  the  approaching  September 
19. 2  New  commissions  and  new  forms  of  oaths  made  it  plain 
that,  after  July  19,  1775,  a  new  authority  existed  in  Massa- 
chusetts. The  change  was  shown  to  be  a  radical  one  by  the 
subsequent  and  more  important  act  of  May  1,  1 776,3  when 
provision  was  made  for  the  termination  of  the  force  of  all 
commissions  in  the  forms  then  current,  for  the  disuse  of  the 
regnal  calendar  and   phraseology,  and  for  the  establishment 

'4  American  Archives,  III.,  2S9.  This  was  passed  July  28,  1775.  journal 
of  House  of  Representatives ;  where  no  page  citation  is  made  the  reference  is  to 
the  proceedings  on  the  date  in  question,  as  given  in  the  records  printed  at  the 
time  for  the  General  Court. 

2  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  42c,  421. 

•'  yournal  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 


I  8  I  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA  CI1  USE  ITS  j  g  T 

of  the  "  Government  and  People  of  the  Massachusetts-Bay, 
in  New  England,"  as  the  source  of  the  authority  by  which 
writs,  precepts,  and  commissions  thereafter  were  to  be  issued.1 
Thus,  "We  are  daily  altering  our  old,  unmeaning  form  of 
government,  as  you  may  learn  by  the  Style  Bill,"  wrote 
James  Sullivan,  the  author  of  the  bill,  to  John  Adams.2 

To  insure  the  success  of  this  alteration  of  government,  thev 
entrusted  the  council  with  the  authority  to  assemble  the  popu- 
lation for  the  defense  of  the  province,  and  they  passed,  with 
reference  to  military  affairs,  further  legislation  directed  to  the 
attainment  and  maintenance  of  independence. 3  The  plain 
assumption  was  that  the  end  was  to  be  success,  and  that  a 
new  state  was  to  appear.     The    tacit  assertion  of  this   ap- 

1  June  i,  1776,  was  fixed  as  the  time  after  which  the  new  forms  were  to  be  used 
in  the  courts,  and  the  regnal  dating  and  king's  authority  to  be  suppressed  in  such 
proceedings,  and  in  writs,  commissions,  etc.  All  commissions,  regardless  of  form, 
made  by  the  majority  of  the  council  since  September  19,  1775,  were  to  be  in 
force  until  September  19,  1776;  but  the  council  were  empowered  to  alter  the 
form  of  such  commissions.  Ads  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  484, 
485;  Charters  and  General  Laws  of  Mass.,  798-800.  By  an  act  of  June  29, 
1776,  the  council  was  empowered  to  alter  also  those  commissions  issued  between 
August  1  and  September  19,  1775;  and  all  commissions,  civil  or  military,  issued 
between  those  dates  by  a  majority  of  the  council  were  to  be  void  unless  changed 
by  September  19,  1776.  Ibid.,  V.,  549,  550.  In  the  Library  of  Harvard  College 
is  one  of  these  commissions,  with  the  required  alterations.  Cf.  H.  B.  Dawson, 
Declaration  of  Independence  by  Massachusetts.,  1862. 

2  New  England  Historic  Genealogical  Society,  Proceedings  Commemorative  of 
the  organization  of  government  in  17S0,  Boston,  1880,  p.  21. 

3  Cf.  Acts  of  1775— '76,  ch.  1;  ch.  10;  ch.  15;  ch.  17;  ch.  19;  ch.  27;  Acts 
of  ijjj-78,  ch.  24.  By  an  Act  of  January  22,  1776,  Acts  of  1775— '76,  ch.  10,  a 
train-band  was  formed  of  all  between  16  and  50  years  of  age,  with  several  ex- 
emptions, including  "  officers  and  students  of  Harvard  College,  .  .  .  church- 
wardens, grammar-school  masters,  masters  of  arts,  the  denomination  of  Christians 
called  Quakers,  selectmen,  for  the  time  being,  .  .  .  ."  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the 
Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  445.  Legislation  was  directed  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
resolution  of  Continental  Congress,  March  14,  1776,  as  to  disarming  the  disaffected 
and  those  who  refused  to  "  associate."  Ibid.,  V.,  479-484.  Acts  were  also  passed 
to  prevent  the  return  of  specified  persons  who  had  gone  over  to  the  enemy.  Cf. 
Ibid.,  V.,  912-918. 


Z82  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \\%2 

peared  in  the  legislation  of  the  General  Court  of  February, 
1777,  when  the  existence  of  a  new  sovereign  was  presumed 
in  a  statute  concerning  treason.  A  condition  was  there  out- 
lined which  involved  allegiance  to  the  power  represented  by 
the  General  Court.  Treason  against  such  power  was  defined 
and  the  penalties  therefor  were  established.1  On  a  similar 
basis  new  oaths  of  allegiance  were  prescribed.2  Along  one 
very  important  line  of  action,  thus,  the  General  Court  gave 
endorsement  and  effect  to  the  work  of  the  Provincial  Con- 
gress by  impressing  upon  each  member  of  the  commonwealth 
the  truth  of  the  new  theory  of  relations.  The  possibility 
and  the  propriety  of  such  action  by  the  General  Court  must 
have  been  evident,  for  the  towns,  with  practical  uniformity, 
had  already  by  formal  votes  renounced  their  allegiance  to 
the  English  king.  The  representatives  had,  on  May  10,  1776, 
passed  a  resolve  for  obtaining  from  each  town  authoritative 
statement  of  the  prevalent  views  as  to  the  attitude  proper  to 
be  assumed  in  case  the  Continental  Congress  should  declare 
independence.  The  response  was  such  as  to  give  assurance 
that  Massachusetts  was  a  unit  with  respeet  to  the  principal 
points  of  policy;  and  it  was  such,  further,  as  to  justify  the 
representatives  in  the  position  assumed  and  the  course  fol- 
lowed.3 

While  the  short  period  in  question  was  wholly  a  transi- 
tional one,  the  government  of  the  province  was  on  a  basis 
which,  with   the  important  limitations  indicated,  was  one  of 

1  Acts  of  1776— '77,  ch.  32;   Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  615. 

Cf.  1  Mass.  Reports,  360. 

'2Acts  of  1777-78,  ch.  18;  Cf  Acts  of  1777-78,  ch.  25,  which  latter  act 
elaborated  and  explained  the  former,  and  provided  that,  if  any  one  declined  to 
take  the  oath,  proceedings  should  be  begun  against  such  person  within  two 
hours. 

3  More  detailed  statement  would,  however,  show  that  in  securing  local  expres- 
sion on  the  subject  of  independence,  the  house  faded  to  obtain  the  concurrence 
of  the  council  and  finally  acted  independently  thereof. 


!  8 3 ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  T  g 3 

permanence.  As  such  a  government,  to  all  appearances,  the 
General  Court  proceeded  in  the  regular  exercise  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  provincial  legislature.1  In  form,  regularity  again 
prevailed,  and  in  the  attainment  of  that  was  the  success  of 
the  change.  Revolutionary  procedure  was  made  impossible  ; 
but  to  the  people  revolutionary  acts  had  given  more  power 
than  had  ever  before  been  effectively  exercised  by  them. 
The  governing  and  the  governed  were  at  last  identical,2  and 
the  opportunity  was  seized  to  make  the  assurance  of  that 
identity  permanent.  When  the  guarantee  of  such  perma- 
nence was  introduced  into  the  organic  law  of  the  land,  the 
transition  may  be  considered  complete.  The  efforts  to  effect 
such  introduction  cover  the  greater  part  of  this  half  decade, 
and  are  made  amid  prolonged  contests  in  the  press,  innumer- 
able instances  of  varied  local  action,  and  a  marked  activity 
in  the  practical  political  life  of  the  people.3     It  was  unavoid- 

1  Detailed  enumeration  of  those  powers  as  specifically  exercised  is  not  essential. 
Mention,  however,  may  be  made  of  such  acts  as  that  of  February  9,  1776,  Acts  of 
1775— '76,  ch.  14,  continuing  or  reviving  107  acts  passed  between  1737  and  1773. 
Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  457-462.  Cf  Ibid.,  V.,  903-905, 
1120-1125.  The  General  Court,  before  it  had  served  six  months,  assessed  a  tax 
of  ^46,000,  and  ordered  an  issue  of  ,£75,000  bills  of  credit.  Ibid.,  V.,  423,  442. 
In  view  of  the  doubt  of  collectors  as  to  their  authority  to  collect  taxes  levied  be- 
fore July  4, 1776,  on  October  17,  1777,  the  house  resolved,  the  council  concurring 
October  18,  "That  all  such  delinquent  Constables  and  Collectors  of  Town 
County  and  Parish  Taxes  be  and  they  hereby  are  directed  to  perfect  their  Collec- 
tions on  such  Warrants  respectively,  and  that  said  Warrants  are  and  ought  to  be 
considered  in  full  Force  the  Declaration  of  Independence  notwithstanding." 
Mass.  Archives,  145:  215. 

2  Strictly,  of  course,  an  exception  should  be  made  of  those  who  by  the  slight 
property  qualification  were  denied  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  a  further  exception, 
according  to  the  views  of  some,  should  be  made  of  those  who  by  age  or  sex  were 
also  excluded  from  a  share  in  the  political  activities. 

3  This  last  statement  is  emphasized  by  the  large  proportion  of  new  members  in 
each  house  of  representatives.  Thus  in  the  house  elected  in  May,  1776,  out  of 
a  list  of  266  members,  161  were  not  in  the  preceding  house.  Boston  Gazette, 
no.  1098,  June  3,  1776.  In  an  incomplete  list  of  the  house  of  May,  1777,  are  124 
new   members.     Ibid.,  no.  11 50,  June  2,  1777. 

In  an  incomplete  list  of  the  house  of  May,  1778,  are  95   newmembers.     Ibid., 


T  84  FR  OM  PR  O  VINCI  A  L   TO  COMMONWEAL  TH  [  T  84 

able  that  under  such  conditions  many  problems  of  theory 
and  many  questions  of  expediency  of  action  should  arise ; 
and  it  was  in  the  solution  of  such  that  the  transitional  de- 
velopment in  Massachusetts  made  definite  addition  to  the 
permanent  results  of  the  Revolution. 

§  2.    The  Issues  of  the  Period 

In  the  five  years  during  which  the  restored  province 
charter  was  in  force,  the  steady  trend  was  toward  a  re- 
organization of  government  on  a  basis  that  would  prove 
to  be  of  some  permanence.  In  the  course  of  this  develop- 
ment many  questions,  both  trivial  and  important,  demanded 
attention ;  and  it  was  the  action  thereupon  that  made  a 
significant  addition  to  the  constructive  work  of  the  period. 
When  the  first  constitution  proposed  for  Massachusetts 
was  completed,  in  the  year  1778,  every  colony  had 
adopted  a  new  form  of  government  or  had  taken  as  such 
its  earlier  charter;  one  colony  had  adopted  its  second 
constitution ;  and  the  people  of  the  region  called  Ver- 
mont had  declared  their  independence  and  likewise  formed 
a  constitution.  In  no  instance  had  there  been  a  sub- 
stantial recognition  of  the  possession  by  the  people  of  any 
constituent  power,  of  any  power  to  authorize  the  institu- 
tion of  such  forms  of  government  as  were  about  to  be  im- 
posed upon  them.  In  some  cases,  to  be  sure,  the  members 
of  the  body  which -formed  the  constitution  had  been  espec- 
ially    instructed     by    their    constituents     to     exercise     such 

no.  1240,  June  I,  1778.  In  the  house  of  May,  1779,  were  at  least  S5  new  mem- 
bers. Ibid.,  no.  1292,  May  31,  1779.  In  the  house  of  May,  1780,  were  at  least 
94  new  members.  Ibid.,  no.  1345,  June  5,  1780.  In  Connecticut,  the  house 
elected  in  May,  1779,  had  101  members,  out  of  a  total  of  146,  who  were  not  in 
the  house  elected  in  October,  1778.  Connecticut  Gazette,  no.  810,  May  20,  1779. 
In  this  house  36  towns  had  wholly  new  representation,  and  from  only  9  towns 
were  the  same  two  members  returned.  Connecticut  journal,  no.  606,  May  26, 
1779. 


185I  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  jgc 

powers;  or  the  convention  had  been  given  a  claim  to  con- 
stituent power  by  the  intermediate  action  of  the  people ; 
and  yet  other  conventions  or  congresses  had  assumed  the 
right  to  form  a  constitution,  had  done  so,  and  had  imposed 
their  work  upon  their  constituents,  and  enforced  obedience 
to  it  as  fully  as  their  resources  allowed.  Regardless,  how- 
ever, of  the  preliminary  authorization,  or  the  lack  of  authori- 
zation, of  these  bodies  to  form  a  constitution,  it  is  an  essential 
fact  that  in  none  of  the  fifteen  instances  indicated  was  the 
body  which  exercised  such  powers  a  body  formed  for  such 
specific  exercise  and  for  such  alone  ;  it  was,  on  the  contrary, 
a  body  oftentimes  in  its  origin  revolutionary,  and  in  its  ac- 
tivity showing  elements  of  a  supreme  judicial  control,  of  a 
direction  of  executive  affajrs,  and  of  practically  continuous 
committee  work  and  resulting  legislation,  as  well  as  such  ac- 
tivity as  is  commonly  considered  that  of  a  constituent  body. 
The  earlier  instances  of  the  exercise  of  constituent  power, 
whether  proper  or  not,  are  characterized  by  a  further  dis- 
tinction applicable  to  all,  and  far  more  important  both  in  its 
practical  bearings  and  in  its  theoretical  significance.  In  no 
case  was  the  work  of  the  so-called  constituent  body  submitted, 
for  acceptance  or  rejection,  to  those  in  whose  behalf  the  body  1 
was  supposed  to  be  acting.  The  possession  by  their  consti- 
tuents of  any  power  of  sanction  was  disregarded  or  denied  ; 
the  new  constitutions  were  actually  imposed  upon  the  people, 
whether  accepted  or  not,  and  no  voice  in  the  matter  was 
allowed  to  those  who  presumably  might  rightfully  have  such. 
Such  arbitrary  action  was,  to  be  sure,  in  many  cases  thor- 
oughly expedient;  but  such  justification  in  no  way  mitigates 
the  evil  of  such  a  course  when  judged  by  the  standards  of 
political  procedure  soon  thereafter  prevalent.  In  the  politi- 
cal conditions  then  existing,  with  the  enemy's  forces  near 
at  hand  or  approaching,  with  many  unknown  enemies  form- 
ing an  indeterminate  minority  and  a  possible  majority  of  the 


lS6  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [1S6 

colonial  population,  with  royal  government  already  destroyed 
or  rapidly  falling  to  pieces,  with  local  government  maintained, 
if  at  all,  only  by  public  sentiment,  it  was  imperative  that  there 
should  be  prompt  and  decisive  action.  The  critical  situation 
demanded,  if  disorganization  and  possible  anarchy  were  to  be 
avoided,  the  establishment  of  some  organization  to  take  the 
place  of  that  already  overthrown.  Government,  at  least  pro- 
vincial government,  must  be  established,  and  in  supplying 
plans  for  such  the  various  congresses  acted  upon  a  candid  in- 
terpretation of  their  duty  to  their  constituents.  Conscious- 
ness of  such  duty  prompted,  as  well,  the  further  action  of  the 
peculiar  type  indicated.  No  risk  should  be  taken  in  pro- 
moting the  new  establishments,  for  a  failure  in  the  first  step 
might  readily  entail  consequences  not  to  be  foreseen.  The 
possibility  of  such  failure  was  due  in  large  measure  to  the 
character  of  the  population,  and  to  the  rapid  development  of 
political  conceptions  and  the  resulting  changes  of  political 
allegiance.  The  presence  of  sympathizers  with  the  king  and 
the  existence  of  an  unknown  number  of  promoters  of  such 
sympathy  made  an  appeal  to  the  suffrages  of  the  people 
upon  any  important  question  extremely  hazardous  and  its  re- 
sult wholly  uncertain.  To  refer  a  question  of  such  vital  im- 
portance to  the  whole  population  was  by  the  leaders  deemed 
unwise,  and  was  thus  impossible.  Each  Congress  accordingly 
took  the  successive  steps  independently  of  the  mass  of  the 
population,  with  the  co-operation  in  each  case  of  a  small 
number  of  true  leaders,  with  the  implied  recognition  and  ap- 
proval of  the  electors  of  the  Congress,  and  with  the  acquies- 
cence, granted  for  expediency  or  secured  through  compulsion, 
of  the  remainder  of  the  population. 

The  uniform  application  of  such  a  description  to  all  in- 
stances of  the  seizure  of  provincial  governments  before  1778 
makes  clear  the  necessities  of  the  time  and  the  summary 
manner   in   which   those   necessities  were   met,   and  for  that 


1 8  7]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CIIUSE  TTS 

very  reason  distinguishes  as  especially  striking  the  course  of 
action  followed  in  Massachusetts.  In  that  commonwealth 
was  put  forth  strongly  the  claim  that  in  the  people  them- 
selves rested  the  supreme  power,  and  there  the  composition 
of  the  constituent  power  was  clearly  defined.  In  that  com- 
monwealth, as  well,  appeared  in  practice  for  the  first  time  the 
proposition  that  the  exercise  of  constituent  power  should  be 
entrusted  by  the  people  to  a  body  which  should  possess  such 
power  and  such  alone. 

The  successful  application  of  the  former  proposition  was 
in  a  large  degree  impossible  in  the  year  of  the  greatest  con- 
stituent activity1  throughout  the  colonies.  Even  Massa- 
chusetts, in  1775,  did  not  submit  the  question  of  the  resump- 
tion of  the  province  charter  to  a  popular  vote.  By  1778, 
however,  and  even  earlier,  the  situation  had  radically 
changed.  Then  the  northern  province  was,  from  a  military 
point  of  view,  practically  secure.  Internally  parties  had 
long  been  defined,  and  proscription  had  made  the  province 
essentially  a  political  unit  upon  all  questions  of  real  import- 
ance. It  had  thus  become  possible  to  make  a  direct  appeal 
to  the  people  without  fear  of  the  result.  The  security  of 
such  a  step  was  increased  by  nothing  more  tangibly  than  by 
the  manner  in  which  town  governments  had  been  regularly 
maintained  and  had,  with  a  very  few  exceptions  in  the  early 
months,  been  controlled  by  the  patriot  party.  Political  ac- 
tivity had  been  kept  at  its  height  in  the  town  organizations, 
and  the  political  consciousness  of  each  individual  had  been 
visibly  stimulated  by  the  current  of  action  and  by  the  pre- 
vailing political  philosophy.  Preparation  for  further  advance 
in  the  political  development  was  ample  and  obvious  ;  and  it 

1  Cf.  Wm.  Whipple,  Philadelphia,  July  16,  1776,  to  John  Langdon;  as  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence:  "This  Declaration  has  had  a  glorious  effect— has 
made  these  Colonies  all  alive :  all  the  Colonies  forming  Governments,  as  you  will 
see  by  the  papers."     5  American  Archives,  I.,  368. 


!  88  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [jgS 

was  equally  evident  that  even  the  first  change  could  not  be 
effected  without  the  immediate  participation  therein  of  each 
person  in  the  political  society.  The  extreme  assertion  of  the 
privileges  of  the  individual  and  of  his  right  to  share  in  the 
political  activity  of  the  commonwealth  resulted  naturally 
from  adherence  to  an  individualistic  philosophy  and  from  an 
exaggerated  and  perverted  regard  for  the  "  state  of  nature." 

The  first  important  fact  established  in  these  few  years 
by  the  men  of  Massachusetts  was  the  superiority  of  the 
political  population  to  forms  of  government.  It  was  asserted, 
and  the  assertion  was  maintained,  that  the  object  of  govern- 
ment was  the  good  of  the  governed,1  that  government  was  to 
be  administered  only  on  the  basis  of  definite  stipulations  and 
forms,  and  that  the  alteration  of  those  rested  solely  with  the 
governed  acting  under  self-imposed  conditions.2 

The  assertion  was  made,  and  maintained,  that  the  power 
to  confer  authority  to  form  a  constitutional  government,  to 
sanction  and  to  put  it  into  operation,  to  alter  or  revoke   it, 

1  Cf.  "The  Interest  of  America :"  "  We  should  always  keep  in  mind  that  great 
truth,  viz :  that  the  good  of  the  people  is  the  ultimate  end  of  civil  Government." 
4  American  Archives,  VI.,  840,  841.  Cf.  "  Where  there  are  no  people,  there 
can  be  no  government;  it  is  the  people  that  constitute  the  government;  and  to 
give  away  a  government  is  giving  away  the  people,  in  the  same  manner  that  giv- 
ing the  proprietaryship  was  giving  the  soil."  Four  Letters  on  Interesting  Sub- 
jects, Philadelphia,  1776,  12. 

2  Not  even  a  special  convention  can  establish  a  constitution  that  cannot  be 
altered  by  the  people.  Furthermore:  "  Constitutions  of  Civil  Government,  like 
other  things,  grow  better  from  time  to  time,  until  they  arrive  at  the  highest  per- 
fection that  their  nature  is  capable  of,  and  then  they  go  to  decay ."  "Specu- 
lator," in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1134,  February  io,  1777. 

The  House  of  Representatives  in  a  message  to  the  Council,  April  21,  1777, 
speak  of  the  "  People,  who  have  at  all  Times  a  Right  to  form  or  alter  a  Constitu- 
tion, .  .   .   ."     Mass.  Archives,  158:   81-83. 

Cf.  "  The  Interest  of  America:"  "As  the  Government  is  for  the  people,  the 
people,  when  properly  represented,  have  a  right  to  alter  it  for  their  advantage." 
4  American  Archives,  VI.,  841. 

Cf.  Elliot,  Debates,  Philadelphia,  1888,  II.,  432. 


t  89]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA  CHUSE  TTS  T  go 

rested  wholly  with  the  people.1  It  was  this  recognition  of 
the  people  as  the  possessors  of  the  highest  power  in  the  com- 
monwealth, and  as  the  source  of  all  authority,  that  distin- 
guished radically  the  development  in  Massachusetts.  It  was 
the  maintenance  of  this  view  that  marked  the  procedure 
there  as  a  significant  advance  in  the  development  of  the 
American  commonwealth. 

As  soon  as  the  people  were  given  an  opportunity,  by  the 
resolve  of  the  General  Court  of  September  17,  1776,  to  act 
with  reference  to  the  exercise  of  constituent  powers,  we  find 
a  prompt  assertion  of  the  popular  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
action  proposed.  Many  towns  granted  to  the  General  Court 
its  request  for  the  authorization  to  exercise  constituent 
powers ;  but  to  such  action  was  repeatedly  joined  the  provis- 
ion that  the  constitution  so  framed  should  be  submitted  to 
the  various  towns  for  approval  or  rejection,  or,  as  Ipswich 
voted,  for  "  their  inspection  and  advisement."2  The  opposi- 
tion of  Worcester  and  Boston  prevented  the  action  in  which, 
on  the  condition  indicated,  a  sufficiently  large  number  of 
the  towns  would  have  acquiesced.  The  refusal  of  Boston  so 
to  empower  its  representatives  was  a  more  emphatic  assertion 
of  local  and  personal  rights ;  in  the  view  of  the  town  the 
forming  of  a  constitution  and  government  "  extends  as  much 
to  our  Religions  as  Civil  Liberties,  and  includes  our  all — It 
effects  every  individual ;  every  individual  therefore  ought  to 
be  consulting,  acting  and  assisting."3 

1  Cf.  J.  Adams  to  Jas.  Sullivan,  May  26,  1776.      IVvrks  of  John  Adams,  IX.,  375. 

'October  7,  1776;  Lincoln  Papers.  Cf.  Vole  of  Rowley,  October  21,  1776, 
that  the  Constitution  should  be  published  for  "  perusal."  Ibid.  Cj.  Vote  of 
Salem,  October  8,  1776,  that  the  constitution  should  be  ratified  by  the  towns. 
Ibid.  The  vote  of  Norton  asserted  that  as  the  end  of  the  government  is  the  good 
of  the  people,  and  that  the  power  to  form  and  establish  a  Constitution  is  "  es- 
sentially in  them."  Mass.  Archives,  156:  125.  Cf.  Vote  of  West  Springfield, 
October  3,  1776;    Lincoln  Papers. 

s  Report  of  the  Record  Commissioners  of  Boston,  Town  Records,  17J0-1777,  248. 


!QO  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [ICjO 

Although  it  was  not  deemed  expedient  to  act  upon  such 
authorization  as  was  at  that  time  granted  to  the  legislators, 
the  occasion  served  to  give  recognition  and  public  sanction 
to  the  theory  asserted,  that  no  form  of  government  should  be 
established  until  it  had  been  submitted  to  the  people  in  their 
town-meetings.  Surh  a  proposal  was  thereafter  repeated,  and 
the  procedure  thus  suggested  finally  established.  A  second 
reference  of  the  question  to  the  towns  by  the  General  Court  in 
May,  1777,  was  followed  by  affirmative  action  on  the  part  of  a 
sufficient  number  of  towns,  but  such  action  was  uniformly  ac- 
companied by  the  instruction  to  the  representatives  that  the 
form  of  government,  then  to  be  devised  by  the  members  of 
the  General  Court,  should  be  referred  to  the  people  acting  in 
town-meetings,  who  should  be  recognized  as  possessing  a 
final  power  to  reject  or  establish.  The  instructions  were  ob- 
served, the  reference  was  made,  and  the  subsequent  action  of 
the  towns  was  accorded  full  weight,  both  by  the  General 
Court  and  by  the  people.  An  entirely  new  practice,  hitherto 
not  countenanced  in  this  constructive  period,  was  thus  intro- 
duced and  its  permanence  assured.  The  attempt  at  a  con- 
stitution in  1778,  and  its  rejection  in  the  following  year,  were 
instructive  to  the  population  and  beneficial  to  the  common- 
wealth ;  they  offered,  as  well,  the  opportunity  for  definite 
advances  in  constitutional  development,  of  which  none  is 
more  fundamental  than  that  indicated.  The  theory  and 
the  practice  then  adopted  were  followed  without  a  question 
or  limitation  in  the  proceedings  of  1779  and  1780,  and 
their  incorporation  into  the  authorized  theory  of  the  state 
assured. 

Among  the  reasons  commonly  offered  for  the  adverse 
votes  on  the  constitution  of  1778,  one,  which  was  closely  con- 
nected with  another  important  advance  of  the  period,  was  the 
fact  that  the  document  had  not  been  framed  by  a  body  espec- 
ially created   and  empowered    for    such    purposes.     Formal 


I g i  ]  GO VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  lgl 

proposals1  to  prevent  any  such  objections  appeared  as  early 
as  action  upon  such  matters  began.2  Such  appeared  in  the 
course  of  the  action  on  the  resolve,  already  mentioned,  of 
September  17,  1776,  and  became  more  prominent  when,  in 
1 777,  the  whole  question  was  again  presented.  The  General 
Court  was  then  empowered  to  form  a  constitution,  although 
the  proposal  so  to  empower  it  had  met  much  opposition 
from  those  towns  which  considered  that  the  exercise  of  the 
constituent  power  should  be  delegated  by  the  people  only  to 
a  body  specifically  created  for  that  purpose  and  for  that 
alone.3  The  opposition  was  increased  by  those  who  sup- 
ported the  council  in  its  earlier  refusal  to  concur  with  the 
house  in  its  proposal  to  form  a  constitution  at  the  time ;  and 
it  was  further  developed  by  the  press.4     The  General  Court 

1  Similar  proposals  had  been  made  already.  "  A  Watchman,"  writing  upon  the 
formation  of  a  constitution  by  the  Assembly,  had  concluded :  "  .  .  .  though  I 
should  think  the  mode  adopted  by  some  of  the  Colonies,  of  electing  persons  for 
the  expressed  purpose  of  forming  the  Plan  of  Government,  more  orderly."  New 
England  Chronicle,  Powars  and  Willis,  August  29,  1776. 

-The  Convention  of  Worcester  county,  Joseph  Henshaw  acting  as  chairman 
on  November  26,  1776,  favored  a  special  state  convention  to  form  a  constitution, 
and  voted  to  urge  the  view  upon  the  other  counties.  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1127, 
December  23,  1776.  The  proceedings  of  this  convention  were  later  endorsed  out- 
side the  county;   e.g.:  Windsor,  Berkshire  Co.,  Lincoln  Papers. 

3  Boston,  May  22,  1777,  voted  unanimously  not  to  instruct  its  representatives  to 
form  a  plan  of  government,  and  appointed  a  committee  on  general  instructions. 
The  report  of  this  committee  was  accepted,  May  26,  and  stated  as  to  a  constitu- 
tion :  .  .  .  "  we  apprehend  this  matter  (at  a  suitable  time)  will  properly  come 
before  the  people  at  large,  to  delegate  a  Select  Number  for  that  Purpose,  &  that 
alone,  .  .  .  ."  Report  oj  Record  Commissioners,  Tou<n  Records,  jfjo-ifjl, 
284-286.  I  find  the  instructions  also  in  Almon,  Remembrancer,  1777,  243,  245; 
Boston  Gazette,  no.  1150,  June  2,  1777;  Connecticut  Gazette,  no.  708,  June  6, 
1777;   Independent  Chronicle,  no.  458,  May  29,  1777. 

4 "  Cato  Censorius  "  supports  the  position  of  the  council  and  denies  the  con- 
stituent power  of  the  General  Assembly:  "The  only  way  then  that  remains  is 
for  the  people  to  form  ....  the  Constitution  :  And  whenever  any  doubt  arises 
about  their  meaning,  for  the  people  to  explain  it.  This  can  only  be  done  by  a 
special  Convention."     Independent  Chronicle,  no.  461,  June  19,  1777. 


ig2  FROM  PROVINCIAL    TO  COMMONWEALTH  rIO/2 

of  1778,  acting  as  a  constituent  body,  was  thus  from  the  be- 
ginning of  its  work  subject  to  severe  criticism  ;  and  it  early 
became  clear  that  the  results  of  its  work  would  meet  with  de- 
termined opposition  from  the  strict  adherents  of  the  theory 
indicated.  Even  during  the  sessions  of  the  constituent  body 
objection  was  made  on  legal  grounds  to  the  participation  in 
such  work  of  certain  representatives  duly  instructed  by  their 
towns  to  pursue  an  entirely  different  course.1 

The  question  was  brought  into  the  contest  with  reference 
to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  and  among  the  reasons 
assigned  for  its  rejection  the  improper  character  of  the  con- 
stituent body  repeatedly  appeared.2  The  rejection  of  the 
document  afforded  a^natural  justification  to  those  who  had 
advanced  such  views  as  the  one  indicated  ;  the  logical  result  of 
the  prominence  given  to  this  view  and  of  its  subsequent  pop- 
ular vindication  was  its  permanent  addition  to  the  effective 
political  rules  of  the  people.  That  such  was  actually  the  re- 
sult, was  shown  in  the  manner  in  which  the  new  policy  was 
adopted  by  the  representatives  of  the  people  assembled  in  the 
General  Court,  when,  in  1779,  they  resumed  efforts  at  a  con- 
stitutional organization,  and  when,  from  the  beginning,  they 
acted  on  the  assumption  that  the  next  constituent  body 
should  be  purely  such,  and  should  exercise  no  powers  not 
strictly  within  the  constituent  function.  The  plan  of  proced- 
ure formed  by  the  General  Court  was  sanctioned  by  the 
towns ;  the  General  Court  was  authorized  to  summon  as  a 
constituent  convention  a  body  distinct  from  itself,  and  upon 

1  Thus  "  A  By-Stander "  refers  to  the  Boston  instructions  and  to  similar  in- 
structions from  other  towns  opposed  to  a  constitution  at  the  time,  and,  address- 
ing the  convention,  says  that  "  within  the  walls  of  your  house,  gentlemen,  there 
are  those  who  were  never  empowered  by  the  electors  to  assist  in  forming  a  Con- 
stitution; and  some,  speakers  and  voters  in  the  Convention  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  following  instructions  of  their  electors,  .  .  .  ."  He  quotes  from  the  Bos- 
ton instructions.     Independent  Chronicle,  no.  492,  January  22,  1778. 

2  Cf.  Lexington,  June  15,  1778.     Mass.  Archives,  160:   30. 


1 93 ]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  ! 93 

the  summons  such  a  convention  was  elected  by  the  towns. 
For  the  first  time  in  the  new  nation  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion appeared  for  which  the  name  was  no  misnomer;  the 
tentative  processes  of  the  earlier  days  were  rejected,  and  what 
became  the  recognized  forms  of  the  succeeding  century  were 
adopted.  Upon  another  fundamental  point  Massachusetts 
thus  took  advanced  ground.  Herein  again  the  events  of  the 
transitional  period  show  definite  progress  in  her  constitu- 
tional development.  They  illustrate,  as  well,  the  possibilities 
which  the  Revolution  offered  to  the  colonists,  and  make 
still  more  striking  the  manner  in  which  Massachusetts  espec- 
ially began  the  settlement  of  constitutional  relations  accord- 
ing to  methods  which  elsewhere  were  ignored,  and  upon  princi- 
ples which  elsewhere  were  much  more  slowly  established. 

The  recognition  of  the  people  as  the  possessors  of  the 
constituent  powers,  the  highest  in  the  commonwealth,  and 
the  addition  to  our  constitutional  system  of  a  convention 
distinctively  constituent,  are  of  chief  importance  among  the 
positive  results  of  the  transition  in  Massachusetts.  Those 
alone  may  justify  strong  opinions  of  the  importance  and 
significance  of  the  work,  although  it  is  not  by  those  simply 
that  such  opinions  are  made  possible.  With  reference  to  the 
less  fundamental  factors  of  government  the  time  of  change 
was  made  the  occasion  for  progress.  Even  in  the  mere  form 
of  the  constitution,  the  work  of  1780  showed  a  marked  ad- 
vance over  earlier  work  elsewhere  and  especially  over  that  of 
1778  in  the  same  commonwealth.  In  the  contents  also  there 
was  a  change,  and  for  the  better.  Safeguards  were  made 
even  more  secure  through  greater  precision ;  the  protection 
of  civil,  political,  and  religious  rights  was  cared  for  with 
shrewdness  ;  and  throughout  appeared  a  consciousness  of  the 
permanent  character  of  constituent  work.  Both  in  form  and 
in  theory  there  was  manifested  an  enduring  worth  contrast- 
ing strongly  with  the  crudeness  which  was  apparent  in  much 
of  the  similar  work  done  elsewhere  during  the  same  period. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE    CONSTITUTION   OF    1 778 

§  I.  Preliminary  Action 

The  "  resumption"  by  Massachusetts  of  the  available  parts 
of  her  charter  of  1C91  opened,  as  has  been  indicated,  a  dis- 
tinct period  in  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  new 
democratic  autonomy.  The  use  of  such  a  constitution, 
originally  furnished  by  the  royal  hand,  continued  until  the 
establishment  of  the  new  constitution  of  1780;  so  that, 
stiictly,  the  revival  of  the  charter  spans  completely  the 
space  between  the  disappearance  of  the  royal  governor 
and  the  organization  of  the  new  commonwealth.  The 
activity  of  the  Provincial  Congress,  of  the  headless  as- 
sembly, and  of  the  constitutional  convention,  would  thus 
present  in  apparent  completeness  the  history  of  the  transi- 
tion ;  but  with  a  broader  view  and  more  inclusive  treatment 
the  earlier  efforts  toward  securing  a  constitution  and  the 
proceedings  in  connection  therewith  must  be  considered  a 
very  pertinent  part  of  the  development. 

When,  in  June,  1775,  the  Continental  Congress  gave  to 
Massachusetts  the  advice  for  "  resumption,"  a  step  forward 
was  taken  in  John  Adams'  general  plan  of  revolutionary  pro- 
cedure and  definite  encouragement  was  given  to  the  rising 
plans  for  fit  and  permanent  constitutions.  By  this  time  the 
prospect  of  an  ultimate  reconciliation  with  England  was  be- 
coming very  slight.  Hence,  the  suggestion  that  a  new  con- 
stitution should  be  formed  might  well  be  acceptable  to  those 
who,  on  general  principles,  were  ready  promptly  to  declare 
194  [194 


j  g  5  ]  £0  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  j  g  r 

themselves  the  source  of  power.  The  advice  to  Massachu- 
setts was  in  the  following  November  repeated,  in  a  developed 
form,  to  New  Hampshire  and  South  Carolina;  each,  early  in 
the  next  year,  established  temporary  governments.  A  still 
more  fully  matured  and  more  radical  form  of  this  advice,  now 
by  some  treated  as  direction  in  the  words  of  suggestion,  was 
in  the  following  May  addressed  by  the  Continental  Congress 
to  all  the  governments  represented  in  its  membership.  By 
this  declaration  of  virtual  independence1  the  establishment  of 
new  forms  of  government  on  a  democratic  basis  was  fully 
sanctioned  by  the  highest  political  power  then  recognized  in 
the  new  nation.  With  rapidity  and  with  all  reasonable 
efficiency,  new  forms  were  established  in  all  the  regions 
earlier  known  as  colonies  of  the  empire.  The  occasion  for 
the  origin  of  such,  the  circumstances  of  the  adoption  thereof, 
the  introduction  of  details  of  political  organization  then  by 
no  means  common,  and  even  the  invariable  recourse  to  the 
certainty  of  a  written  document,  emphasized  both  the  novelty 
of  the  procedure  and  the  fact  that  arrangements  of  some 
permanence  were  being  effected.  Eveiywhere,  except  in 
New  England  and  South  Carolina,  the  finality  of  arrange- 
ments was  evident.  In  the  last  named  commonwealth  the 
confessedly  temporary  constitution  of  1776  was  replaced  in 
1778  by  one  of  more  permanent  character.  The  earlier 
freedom  from  imperial  control  and  other  external  relations 
made  it  easy  and  natural  for  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island 
to  continue  operations  under  their  seventeenth  century 
chaiters  with  practically  complete  continuity  and  with  un- 
usual stability.  After  much  delay  and  discussion  the  early 
and  crude  constitution  of  New  Hampshire  was  superseded,  in 
1784,  by  one  intended  for  permanence.     As  in  the  middle 

1  Cf.  John  Adams,  Familiar  Letters,  173,  174,  195.  Cf.  "Columbus"  in 
Loudon's  Packet,  no.  24,  June  13,  1776.  Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams,  II.,  4S9- 
491 ;  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  Sta  les,  Author's  Last  Revision,  IV.,  342-34-;. 


!  y o  FR  0M  PR  °  VINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEAL  TH  [ig6 

and  southern  provinces,  so  in  Massachusetts,  the  charter  did 
not  readily  lend  itself  to  the  uses  of  a  constitution.  It  could 
serve  for  temporary  purposes,  but  for  nothing  further.  From 
the  time  of  its  retstablishment  the  popular  aim,  modified 
now  by  the  exigencies  of  war,  now  by  the  tortuous  currents 
of  sectional  politics,  was  toward  the  supersession  of  this  form 
of  government.1  On  this  and  allied  topics  for  five  years  the 
public  mind  rested ;  around  this  were  grouped  a  mass  of 
reason  and  opinion  of  the  greatest  variety  and  of  strangely 
divergent  types;  to  this  the  attention  of  the  assembly  and 
the  town-meeting,  of  the  press  and  of  the  politician,  was  di- 
rected. 

Even  in  the  month  preceding  the  "  resumption  "  of  the 
charter  James  Warren  had  written  from  Watertown  that  he 
was  relieved  "  by  an  Intimation  of  a  probability  that  you  will 
regulate  the  Constitution  of  all  the  Colonies."2  In  December 
of  the  same  year  Warren,  in  a  letter  to  Sam  Adams,  asked  : 
"  is  it  not  time  to  have  the  Constitution  of  our  Supreem 
Legislative  accurately  fixd  &  fully  Established  &  known."3 
Already  an  address,4  supposedly  from  a  Salem  man,  had 
thus  stated  the  situation :  "  We  have  it  now  in  our  hands  to 
establish  an  everlasting  barrier  against  ministerial  influence, 
and  to  obtain  substantial  justice  for  the  people.  I  mean  by 
carrying  back  the  Constitutions  of  the  several  Colonies  to 
their  original  principles ;  .  .  .  Until  this  be  done,  we  .  .  . 
must  be  governed  by  temporary  expedients,  .  .  ."4  By 
John  Pitts,  of  Watertown,  the  situation  was  thus  stated  in  a 

1  Besides  the  many  proposals  for  a  complete  supersession  of  the  charter,  men- 
tion should  be  made  of  the  proposal  to  complete  the  government  under  the 
charter  by  the  election  of  a  governor.  Works  of  John  Adams,  IX.,  395,  411. 
Cf.  Ibid.,  IX.,  451. 

'■'To  [Sam'l  Adams] — June  21, 1775.     Adams  Papers,  IX.,  Bancroft  Collection. 
sJas.  Warren,  to  S.  Adams,  Watertown,  Sept.   19,  1775;   Adams  Papers,  IX., 
Bancroft  Collection. 

*  Sept.  8,  1775;  4  American  Archives,  III.,  677. 


! 9 7]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA C1I USE TTS  j  9  7 

letter  of  October  25  :  "At  present  there  appears  to  me  just 
connection  enough  [with  Great  Britain]  only  to  embarrass  us, 
by  spending  a  great  deal  of  time  to  conform  to  a  Charter 
wch  they  have  violated  in  almost  every  instance."  "  I  think 
we  are  under  no  obligations  to  trouble  ourselves  with  ye  charter 
at  all,  but  especially  if  it  will  retard  or  obstruct  exertions  for 
our  safety,  but  attend  to  a  plan  best  adapted  to  promote 
ye  great  cause  of  Liberty,  the  origin  of  government;  .  .  .  ."* 
The  conditions  of  the  need  were  scarcely  such  as  to  tend 
to  unanimity  either  of  purpose  or  of  action.  Various  politi- 
cal theorizings,  different  views  of  the  relation  of  circumstances 
and  expediency,  and  a  confused  mixture  of  selfish  views  and 
discordant  interests,  combined  to  delay  and  even  to  obstruct 
the  successful  attainment  of  the  end  proposed.  To  cite  a 
single  instance  of  the  uncertainty  in  the  political  situation, 
the  Berkshire  county  committee  of  correspondence  opposed 
the  form  of  government  recommended  by  the  Continental 
Congress,  and  soon  thereafter  the  action  of  the  county  com- 
mittee was  repudiated  by  the  local  committees  of  eight  towns 
concerned.2  The  position  of  the  latter  was  elsewhere  endorsed 
in  the  insistence  upon  complete  disregard  of  old  forms,  and 
the  creation  of  a  governmental  organization  entirely  new  in 
origin,  in  sanction,  and  in  content.  The  advanced  views 
were  repeated  in  a  petition3  from  the  town  of  Pittsfield  which 
was  presented  to  the  General  Court,  February  6,  1776,4  ask- 
ing that  the  General  Court  issue  orders  for  the  election  of  a 
governor  and  lieutenant-governor.     From  the  same  town5  a 

1  Adams  Papers,  III.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  4  American  Archives,  V.,  807.  3  Ibid.,  IV.,  1434. 
4  Jottrnal  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

5 "  The  first  motion  towards  a  regular  formation  of  government  seems  to  have 
begun  in  the  town  of  Pittsfield,  as  early  as  February,  1776,  .  .  .  ."  Savage, 
Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  5.  But  Pittsfield,  Dec.  26,  1775,  petitioned  the 
General  Court,  and  declared  its  "  abhorrence  of  that  constitution  now  adopting 
in  this  Province."  Smith,  History  of  Pittsfield,  I.,  343,  where  it  is  stated  that 
1  'some  action  must  have  taken  place  earlier,  .  .  .  ."     Cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  343~345- 


igS  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \_\Q% 

memorial1  was  on  May  29,  1776,  presented  to  the  General 
Court,2  declaring  that  the  dissolution  of  the  power  of  Great 
Britain  had  left  America  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  that  "  the 
people  are  the  fountain  of  power."  From  the  former  suppo- 
sition arose  the  necessity  of  a  constitution  of  civil  govern- 
ment ;  such  a  constitution,  the  memorialists  would  suggest, 
should  be  proposed,  not  imposed,  by  the  representatives, 
should  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  people,  and  should  be 
subject  to  the  approbation  of  the  Continental  Congress.3 

With  politics  is  involved  economics,  as  when  "  Worcestrien- 
sis"  mildly  suggests  that  "  the  form  and  tenor  of  our  govern- 
ment be  lenient  and  bland,  so  as  to  induce  men  of  free  senti- 
ments and  noble  minds  to  emigrate  from  other  nations,  and 
become  the  free  and  willing  subjects  of  an  AMERICAN  FREE 
State."4  And,  further,  as  the  effect  of  imminent  danger 
and  of  repeated  campaigns,  there  appears  in  the  discussion 
a  tinge  of  pessimism,  as  in  the  letter  whose  writer  supported 
the  "  opinion  that  it  will  be  highly  impolitick  and  even  mad- 
ness to  spend  our  time  in  constructing  and  refining  of  consti- 
tutions to  the  neglect  of  necessary  defence."5  This  was 
pungently  expressed,  somewhat  later,  by  "  Marcus  Brutus  " 
when,  in  the  Independent  Chronicle?  he  wrote:  "  Let  us  not 
then  employ  ourselves  any  longer  in  vain  disputes  about  the 

1  Mass.  Archives,  181  :  42. 

2  The  petition  and  memorial  were  read  in  the  house,  July  1,  1776,  and  referred 
to  a  committee  appointed  June  6.     Journal  of  the  House  of Representatives. 

On  June  4  the  house  resolved  to  appoint  a  committee  of  9  to  report  a  form  of 
government  and  a  plan  of  representation.  On  the  next  day  it  was  voted  to  have 
one  from  each  county  on  the  committee.  On  June  6  they  were  chosen,  including 
Hawley  and  Pickering.  I  judge  that  the  committee  must  have  remained  in 
activity  until  Sept.  5,  1776,  at  least.     Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

3  Cf.  John  Adams,  Familiar  Letters,  169. 
*  Mass.  Spy,  no.  276,  Aug.  7,  1776. 

5 to .     May,  1776.     Adams  Papers,  IV.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

6  No.  457;   May  22,  1777. 


1 99]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  l 99 

form  of  government.  Let  us  first  see  whether  we  have  a 
country  to  govern,  and  ascertain  the  Lords  of  the  soil."1  The 
advance  toward  a  new  form  of  government  was  retarded  by 
those  who  spoke  for  the  unrepresented  citizens  who  were  ab- 
sent in  the  army ;  it  was  hindered  by  those  who  wished  to 
postpone  the  adoption  of  constructive  measures  until  calm 
should  be  restored ;  it  was  opposed  by  those  who  believed 
the  existing  forms  were  adequate  to  the  needs  of  the  imme- 
diate future.  It  was  also  emphatically  renounced  by  the  class 
which  "do  not  like  a  form  of  government  when  courts  are  set 
up  and  men  are  forced  to  pay  their  debts,"  whose  opinions 
"  a  Berkshire  Man"  voiced  in  the  warning  that  if  the  "  Gen- 
eral Court  does  establish  such  a  form  of  government,  we  shall 
think  them  all  tories — we  shall  never  like  it  and  for  our  own 
sakes  as  well  as  for  the  sake  of  our  posterity,  we  are  de- 
termined never  to  submit  to  it."2 

However,  what  have  been  called  the  advanced  views  had 
been  given  to  the  public  from  high  authority  when,  in 
August,  John  Adams,  in  a  letter  to  Francis  Dana,  had  said 
that  "  the  right  of  the  people  to  establish  such  a  government 
as  they  please,  will  ever  be  defended  by  me,  whether  they 
choose  wisely  or  foolishly."3  Of  this  line  of  teaching  the 
natural,  as  well  as  the  most  effective,  outcome  was  the  as- 
sembly resolve  of  September  17,  1776,  when  it  was  proposed 
to  bring  to  a  direct  vote  in  each  town  the  question  of  em- 
powering the  house  and  council,  acting  as  one  body,  to  form 
a  constitution,  and  the  further  question  of  ordering  the  pub- 

1  Cf.  "  Hampden  "  in  the  Pennsylvania  Evening  Post,  vol.  II.,  no.  290,  No- 
vember 28,  1776:  "For  Heaven's  sake  let  all  disputes  about  frames  of  Govern- 
ment subside  for  the  present,  or  we  shall  be  obliged  to  receive  a  Government 
from  the  sword  of  a  proud  and  successful  enemy."  I  his  is  reprinted  in  5  American 
Archives,  III.,  890,  891. 

2 Boston  Gazette,  no.  11 13;   Sept.  16,  1776. 

3  Philadelphia,  Aug.  16,  1776.      Works  of  John  Adams,  IX.,  430. 


200  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [200 

lication  of  such  constitution  for  "perusal"  by  the  inhabitants 
before  it  should  be  established  by  the  General  Court.1 

Such  a  definite  step  toward  the  exercise  of  constituent 
powers  defined  public  thought  and  aroused  public  expres- 
sion. To  determine  the  theory  of  the  situation,  and  to  help 
in  further  procedure,  the  town  of  Billerica  early2  declared 
that  the  tyranny  of  Great  Britain  and  the  dissolution  of  con- 
nection between  that  country  and  her  colonies  had  "broken 
up  the  Constitution  of  this  Province,"  and  asserted  that  it 
had  "  now  become  necessary,  for  the  prevention  of  anarchy, 
for  the  preservation  of  internal  peace  and  good  order,  and 
for  the  Mutual  security  of  the  Inhabitants  in  the  enjoyment 
of  their  property  and  just  rights,  that  some  form  of  govern- 
ment be  speedily  erected ;  .  .  ."3  Stoughton  repeated  the 
assertion  that  "  this  State  is  at  present  destitute  of  a  fixed 
and  established  Form  of  Government,"4  suggesting  at  the 
same  time  a  series  of  county  conventions  with  a  subsequent 
state  constitutional  convention.  As  to  procedure  also,  the 
town  of  Bellingham  voted  that  "  it  should  be  proper  that  the 
form  of  Government  for  this  State  to  originate  in  each  town, 
and  by  that  means  we  may  have  the  ingenuity  of  all  the 
State,"  and  proposed  that  in  each  district  thirty  miles  or 
less  in  diameter  a  constitutional  convention  be  held  includ- 
ing in  its  membership  one  in  every  thirty  inhabitants,  that 
the  results  be  revised  by  the  towns,  that  the  deputations 
from  each  local  conference  join  in  a  state  conference,  and 
that  this  body  finally  call  a  state  convention  to  form  a  con- 
stitution, "  so  that  they  add  nothing  to,  nor  diminish  nothing 

1  Boston  Town  Records,  XVIII. ,  247. 

2  October  14,  1776. 

3  Mass.  Archives,  156:    162.     A  transcript  is  in  the  Lincoln  Papers. 

4  Pouiars  (Sr5  Willis'  Independent  Chronicle,  425;  Oct.  10,  1776.  Also  in 
Mass.  Archives,  156  :  125,  where  the  spelling  is  •'  Goverment."  The  Independent 
Chronicle  on  December  26,  1776,  had  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
"Worcester  county  convention  concerning  the  need  of  government. 


2 o I  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  2 O I 

from  the  general  sense  of  each  town."1  The  town  of  Ash- 
field  stood  out  early  as  a  champion  of  the  single  legislative 
body2  and  declared  its  platform  of  general  principles  when  it 
"  Voted  that  it  is  our  Opinniun  that  we  do  not  want  any 
Goviner  but  the  Goviner  of  the  univarse,  and  under  him  a 
States  Ginaral  to  Consult  with  the  wrest  of  the  united  stats 
for  the  good  of  the  whole,  .  .  ."3  The  towns  produced  a 
mixed  mass  of  political  philosophy  and  of  practical  politics 
that  avoided  philosophy ;  the  press  began  to  abound  with 
vigorous  extracts  from  town  records  and  with  every  variety 
of  political  literature.4  Of  the  latter  material  in  the  press  of 
Massachusetts  probably  few  contributed  more  in  these  years 
than  did  the  Roxbury  clergyman,  Dr.  Gordon.  At  this  time 
he  opposed  the  single  legislative  body,  as  well  as  multiple 
office-holding,  quoting  thereon  the  Virginia  constitution  and 
concluding:  "  I  humbly  apprehend,  that  sooner  or  later  we 
must  follow  in  the  main  the  example  of  the  Virginians,  or 
rue  the  consequence."5  Concerning  his  hopes  of  Massa- 
chusetts regaining  her  former  political  condition,  his  belief 
was  thus  tersely  expressed  :  "Nothing  will  be  more  likely  to 
promote  these  valuable  ends,  next  to  the  good  morals  of  the 
people,  than  a  proper  form  of  government,  securing  and 
perpetuating  to  every  man  and  his  posterity  the  full  enjoy- 
ment of  their  rights  and  privileges,  civil  and  sacred."6 

Amid   all  this  there  was  one  barrier  to  success,  when,  on 
October  16,  Boston  refused  to  empower  its  representatives 

1  Lincoln  Papers. 

2 As  also,  e.g.:  'New  Salem;    Cf.  Mass.  Archives,  156:  366. 

3  Mass.  A  rch  ives,  156:   131. 

4  For  returns  to  the  resolve  of  Sept.  17,  1776,  see,  for  example:  Blake,  History 
of  Warwick,  55;  Weston  Records,  230;  Clark,  History  of  Norton,  425,426; 
Annals  of  Mendon,  348,  349;  Hazen,  History  of  Billerica.  238,239;  Perry, 
History  of  Bradford,  29;    Adams,  Address  at  Acton,  Boston,  1S35,  I7>  *8. 

b5  American  Archives,  II.,  228.      Cf.  Ibid.,  I.,  1 284-1288. 
6  5  American  Archives,  II,,  227. 


202  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  r202 

to  frame  a  constitution.  There  was  a  call  to  cautious  and 
deliberate  action,  and  an  appeal  was  taken  also  by  the  cap- 
ital to  the  politically  effective  issue  of  equality  of  represen- 
tation.1 Already  John  Adams  had  written  to  Hawley: 
"  Equality  of  representation  in  the  legislature  is  a  first  prin- 
ciple of  liberty,  and  the  moment  the  least  departure  from 
such  equality  takes  place,  that  moment  an  inroad  is  made 
upon  liberty."  2  In  connection  with  this  matter  it  has  been 
said  that  "  the  most  influential  cause  that  led  to  a  new 
model  of  the  form  of  government  arose  from  the  great  mis- 
take of  the  first  Legislature,"3  in  their  act  on  representation 
passed  by  the  house  on  August  17,  1775.4  By  this  rep- 
resentation was  made  unequal  and  too  full,5  and  occasion 
was  given  for  such  activity  as  that  of  the  Essex  county 
convention   of  April  25,  1776,  by  which   a   memorial6  was 

1  Boston  Town  Records,  XVIII.,  248.  The  vote  of  the  meeting  of  October 
11-16  is  in  Mass.  Archives,  156:   160. 

2  J.  Adams,  to  Jos.  Hawley,  Philadelphia,  August  25,  1776;  Works  of  John 
Adams,  IX.,  435. 

3  James  Savage,  Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  5. 

*  Every  town  of  thirty  freeholders  qualified  to  vote  for  representatives  was  to  send 
one  representative,  and  as  many  more  as  the  earlier  law  allowed;  every  incor- 
porated district  having  all  rights  except  representation  was  given  that  right  and 
made  a  town.  Charters  and  General  Laws  of  Mass.,  796—798.  This  act  was 
introduced  by  Major  Hawley;  for  its  course  in  the  house,  see  Journal  of  the 
House  of  Representatives ;  begun  July  iq,  1775;  45>  53>  57>  67,  76.  Acts  and 
Resolves  of  the  Proviiice  of  Mass.,  V.,  419,  420. 

5  Cf.  Vote  of  Hingham,  May  23,  1776.     Lincoln,  History  of  Hingham,  106. 

6  In  this  convention  seventeen  towns  were  represented  by  twenty-two  delegates. 
Danvers  and  Beverly  subsequently  agreed  to  the  action  taken.  The  memorial 
states:  "...  we  fear  that  if  a  different  Mode  of  Representation  from  the  pres- 
ent, is  not  adopted  in  this  Colony,  our  Constitution  will  not  continue,  to  that  late 
Period  of  Time,  which  the  glowing  Heart  of  every  true  American  now  antici- 
pates  ""if  an   Equality  of  Representation   takes  place  in  the  Colony,  we 

shall  be  satisfied,  whether  it  has  Respect  to  Numbers,  to  Property  or  to  a  Com- 
bination of  both."  It  farther  states  that  a  single  town  in  Essex  county  pays 
more  taxes  than  thirty  other  towns  and  districts,  that  a  majority  in  the  General 
Court  could  be  secured  from  towns  that  do  not  pay  one-fourth  of  the  taxes,  and 


203]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  203 

presented  to  the  General  Court;  the  committee  report 
thereon  was  followed  by  the  act  of  May  4,  1776,  allowing 
three  representatives  for  220  electors,  four  representatives 
for  320  electors,1  and  so  on  upwards.  By  this  the  inequality 
in  the  representation  of  the  towns  was  said  to  have  been  re- 
moved, but  the  house  was  made  so  numerous  as  to  be  un- 
wieldy.2 Furthermore,  a  number  of  vigorous  protests  were 
elicited  by  the  fact  that  this  law  was  not  promulgated  until 
after  the  issue  of  writs  for  the  May  election,  so  that  on  elec- 
tion day  towns  within  twenty  miles  of  the  General  Court 
knew  nothing  of  the  new  statute  under  which  they  were  sup- 
posed to  be  acting.  The  assertion  that  the  act  had  made 
the  condition  of  affairs  even  worse  than  before  was  strength- 
ened by  the  opinion  that  the  act  was  nothing  less  than  ille- 
gal.3 The  effect  of  all  this  upon  action  concerning  the 
resolve  of  the  assembly  of  September  17  was  indicated  when 

that  Essex  county  pays  more  than  one-sixth  of  the  taxes,  but  sends  only  one- 
tenth  of  the  representatives.  Mass.  Archives,  159:  192.  Reprinted  in  Acts  and 
Resolves  of  the  Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  542,  543. 

1  Cf  Savage,  Constitution  [of  Massachusetts,  6.  Cf  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the 
Province  of  Mass.,  V.,  502,  503.  Charters  and  General  Laws  of  Mass.,  694. 
The  act  was  introduced,  read  three  times,  and  passed  to  be  engrossed,  in  one 
day.     Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  242,  244,  245. 

2  Boston  Tow7i  Records,  XVIII.,  234,  235. 

To  the  house  of  July,  1775,  205  members  were  returned;  to  that  of  May, 
1776,266  members.  Of  the  difference  of  61,  certain  counties  had  fewer  repre- 
sentatives, while  there  was  an  increased  representation  of  23  from  Suffolk  county, 
25  from  Essex,  10  from  Middlesex,  and  7  from  Plymouth.  Journal  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  The  effect  upon  inland  counties  of  the  suddenness  with 
which  the  act  was  passed  appears  in  the  representation  of  Worcester  county, 
J775'  37.  I776»  34.  I777»  °2;  of  Hampshire  county,  1775,  25,  1776,27,  1777,41; 
of  Berkshire  county,  1775,  7,  1776,  11,  1777,  20.  Ibid.  A  mction  to  repeal  the 
act  was  defeated,  June  4,  1777.     Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

3"Centinel"  in  Mass.  Spy,  298;  Jan.  16,  1777.  The  author  of  this  article 
claimed  that  the  Act  made  too  large  an  Assembly  and  entailed  too  great  an  ex- 
pense on  the  remote  towns;  he  even  suggested  the  possibility  of  county  congresses 
and  a  provincial  conference  to  repeal  the  act  before  the  next  election.  Cf. 
Worcester  Town  Records,  291. 


204  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [204 

the  town  of  Sutton  spoke  of  the  house  as  a  "very  unequal 
representation,"  and  also  as  illegal,  many  of  its  members 
having  been  "  chosen  by  virtue  of  a  pretended  law  made 
after  the  precepts  went  out  for  the  election  of  the  House."1 
From  this  arose  the  objection  of  the  town  to  the  forma- 
tion and  ratification  of  a  constitution  by  such  a  house. 
The  same  day  the  town  of  Oxford  adopted  a  committee  re- 
port opposing  the  enactment  of  a  constitution  by  an  assem- 
bly which  was  such  a  "  very  unequal  representation,"2  and  the 
trend  of  action  thus  fostered  helped  in  the  distinct  rejection 
of  the  September  proposals.  However,  the  refusal  of  the 
towns  to  confer  constituent  powers  upon  the  General  Court 
involved  merely  the  defeat  of  a  method  of  securing  change 
without  a  denial  of  its  need.  The  general  recognition  of  the 
necessity  of  some  alteration  in  political  forms  was  modified 
by  divergence  of  views  as  to  the  time  for  action  and  concern- 
ing the  extent  and  thoroughness  of  the  reconstruction. 

After  a  brief  period3  of  comparative  political  quiet  the  pro- 
ject of  reorganization  was  taken  up  by  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, which  on  April  4  adopted  and  sent  to  the  council 
for  concurrence  a  resolve4  recommending  that  the  people  in 
the  approaching  election  should  empower  their  representa- 
tives to  form  a  constitution  for  submission  to  the  towns.  The 
council,  in  its  message  in  reply,  suggested  that  the  people 
had  already  too  much  to  attend  to,  that  a  new  constitution 
would  help  matters  neither  externally  nor  internally,  and  that 

'October  7,  1776;  5  American  Archives,  II.,  936.  Cf.  Benedict  and  Tracy, 
History  of  Sutton,  99. 

2  5  American  Archives,  II.,  936,  937. 

3  On  January  27,  1777.  after  the  result  of  the  returns  on  the  resolve  of  Sept. 
17,  1776,  had  been  reviewed,  the  house  of  representatives  received  a  committee 
report  proposing  that  for  one  year  of  a  body,  of  the  same  size  as  the  assembly, 
should  be  elected  to  frame  a  constitution.  No  action  is  indicated.  Mass. 
Archives,  137:  1 38-141. 

4  Original  Bill  in  Mass.  Archives,  156:   200-202. 


205 ]  GG  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  2o; 

with  the  removal  of  the  governor  the  people  had  secured 
sufficient  power.  "  There  is  such  a  variety  of  sentiments1 
upon  this  head,  that  we  believe  no  particular  plan  can  be 
proposed  but  that  will  meet  with  very  great  opposition  from 
some  quarter  or  other.  .  .  .  "2  The  distracted  career  of 
Pennsylvania,  that  "  recent  instance  of  the  dangerous  effects 
of  so  great  an  alteration  of  government,"  was  held  up  as  a 
gloomy  example,  coupled  with  the  fear  that  similar  result 
might  be  expected  from  such  an  attempt  in  Massachusetts. 
The  lower  house,  however,  on  the  2  I  st,3  maintained  its  position 
of  the  4th  and  asked  for  a  reconsideration  by  the  council,  as- 
suring them  that  their  views  and  acts  were  controlled  by  the 
general  opinion  of  the  "  People,  who  have  at  all  Times  a 
Right  to  form  or  alter  a  Constitution,"4  and  that  "ever  since 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  we  conceive  a  great  Part  of 
our  Constituents  have  been  expecting  that  a  new  Constitution 
would  be  formed,  or  some  Alterations  made  in  the  present."5 
The  opposition  to  the  lower  house  was  now  voiced,  for 
one,6  by   "  Philadelphus  "  who  claimed   that  "  at  this   time, 

1  Cf.  "Philadelphus"  in  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  452,  April  17,  1777;  .  .  . 
"  every  man  within  the  State  has  his  own  sentiments  upon  government,  and  the 
minds  of  the  people  are  more  desonant  upon  this,  than  upon  their  mode  of  wor- 
ship, or  any  other  subject :  and  every  one  who  is  disappointed  in  his  notions  or 
plan,  or  who  shall  not  obtain  his  private  views  in  the  new  mode,  will  affect  to  be 
abused,  will  collect  a  party,  and  call  all  the  rest  tyrants :  And  in  the  present 
situation  of  public  affairs,  if  one  sixth  part  of  the  people  should  be  against  the 
form  fabricated  by  this  venerable  convention,  it  never  could  be  rendered  coercive." 

2  Mass.  Archives,  1 58  :   78. 

3  It  was  on  April  29,  1777,  that  the  house  resolved,  fifteen  of  the  council  con- 
curring, "  That  such  unincorporated  plantations  as  are  Taxed  to  this  State  be  and 
hereby  are  empowered  to  join  in  the  choice  of  Representatives  with  such  Town 
where  they  are  taxed."  Acts  and  Resolves  of  the  Province  0/'  Mass.,\.,  51 1, 
reprinted  from  Council  Records,  XXXVII.,  251. 

4  Mass.  Archives,  158:   81-83. 

6  April  21,  1777;   Mass.  Archives,  158:   81-83. 

6"  Hannibal,"  who  in  the  autumn  of  1776  favored  a  Constitution,  writes: 
"But  now  it  is  wrong  toto  caelo ;"  all  energy  should   be  put  on  the  war,  and,  at 


206  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [206 

to  begin  a  new  mode  of  government,  to  set  people  by  the 
ears  in  a  contention  about  the  rights  of  elections,  to  dissolve 
all  government,  to  step  into  a  state  of  nature,  where  there  is 
no  hopes  [sic]  of  emerging  from  it,  and  to  bring  old  chaos 
back  again,"  could  "  be  the  work  of  only  madmen  or  fools."1 
On  the  other  hand,  the  people  of  Massachusetts  had  already 
seen  nine  new  constitutions  of  varying  degrees  of  excellence, 
they  had  been  able  to  read  not  only  the  general  political 
pamphlets  of  the  time  but  also,  to  a  less  extent,  the  special 
works  of  Carter  Braxton2  and  John  Dickinson  on  forms  of 
government,  and  the  writings  of  John  Wise3  on  ecclesiastical 
polity ;  they  were  acting  as  well  as  thinking  along  the  lines 
of  John  Adams'  "  Thoughts  on  Government,"4  and  of  the 
tract  entitled  "  The  People  the  Best  Governors."5  To  all 
appearances  political  education6  was  now  sufficiently  exten- 
sive and  definite  to  equip  the  people  for  the  special  task  be- 
fore them.     The  general  and  apparent  readiness  for  the  work 

all  events,  the  General  Assembly  should  never  form  a  Constitution.  Independent 
Chronicle,  no.  457,  May  22,  1777.  Cf.  "  Marcus  Brutus  "  in  Independent  Chron- 
tele,  no.  446,  July  17,  1777. 

1  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  452,  April  17,  1777. 

2  See  Sabin,  Bibliotheca  Americana,  no.  7466. 

3  Cf.  Dexter,  Three  Hundred  Yean  of  Congregationalism,  498,  501,  502. 
Tyler,  History  of  American  Literature,  New  York,  1879,  II.,  104-116.  Clark, 
History  of  the  Congregational  Church  in  Mass,  119.  Doyle,  7 he  Puritan 
Colonies,  London,  1887,  II.,  486,  487. 

*  Printed  in  Essex  "Journal,  no.  148,  November  I,  1776.  Cf.  4  American 
Archives,  IV.,  1136-1140;  Works  of  John  Adams,  IV.,  189- 2CO.  See  Sabin, 
Bibliotheca  Americana,  no.  251. 

5  Cf.  an  article  by  the  present  writer  on  "The  People  the  Best  Governors,"  in 
The  American  Historical  Review,  vol.  I.,  no.  2. 

6 The  press  was  active  in  political  matters;  e.g.:  the  Independent  Chronicle, 
no.  446,  Mar.  6,  1777,  published  a  new  constitution  of  43  articles;  the  Boston 
Gazette,  no.  1 179,  Dec.  22,  1777,  published  a  four  column  "Constitution  of  the 
American  Republic,"  by  a  confessedly  obscure  farmer;  the  60  articles  of  this 
were  written  "all  in  the  Interval  between  Ten  o'Clock,  A.  M.  and  Two  o'Clock, 
P.  M." 


207]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  207 

increased  the  weight  of  authority  with  which  the  lower  house 
could  speak;  and,  on  May  5,  the  house  bill  passed  the  Gen- 
eral Court.  By  this  it  was  recommended  that  the  towns  at 
the  coming  election  should  empower  their  representatives  to 
take  part  as  members  of  a  constituent  body,  in  the  formation 
of  a  new  constitution,  to  be  submitted  to  the  towns  for  their 
action,1  and  to  be  established  by  the  General  Court  after  hav- 
ing been  approved  by  two-thirds  of  the  freemen  of  the  state, 
who  were  twenty-one  years  of  age.2  This  proposed  step  met 
the  immediate  opposition  of  the  capital.  Not  only  were  self- 
denying  ordinances  broached,  but  Boston  as  well  suggested 
a  special  convention  at  a  suitable  time,  and  had  "peculiarly 
in  View  making  the  Council  intirely  independent  of  the  House, 
cV>  to  prevent  the  lately  too  prevalent  Custom  of  accumulating 
Offices  in  one  Persone ;  .  .  .  ."3  In  spite  of  such  and  other 
opposition,  the  recommendation  of  the  General  Court  was, 
in  the  May  elections,  adopted  by  a  sufficient  number  of 
towns,  and  a  majority4  of  representatives  were  returned  fully 
authorized  to  share  in  the  formation  of  a  new  constitu- 
tion.5 

§  2.    Work  of  the  Convention 
Pursuant  to  the  act  of  May    5,  1777,  the  Massachusetts 

1  Cf.  "  Hints  for  a  form  of  government,"  Tenti.  Evening  Tost,  II.,  232,  July  16, 
1776. 

2  Two  original  prints  of  this  are  in  Mass.  Archives,  213:  472,  473.  The 
original  drafts  of  the  Resolution,  with  the  disagreements,  amendments,  etc.,  are 
in  Mass.  Archives,  214:   3-9. 

3  This  action  of  May  26,  based  on  the  vote  of  May  22,  is  in  Report  of  Boston 
Record  Commissioners,  Boston  Town  Records,  1 770-1 777,  284-286.  The  In- 
structions of  Boston  to  her  Representatives  are  in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  11 50, 
June  2,  1777;  Connecticut  Gazette,  jc$,  June  6,  1777;  Independent  Chronicle, 
458,  May  29,  1777;    Almon's  Remembrancer,  1777,  243-245. 

4  A.  H.  Bullock,  Centennial  of  the  Mass.  Constitution,  12. 

5  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Begun  May  28,  1777,  15,  24,  25. 


208  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [208 

assembly  of  17771  resolved  itself,  on  June  17,2  into  a  con- 
stituent convention,  and,  having  effected  an  organization^ 
proceeded  at  once  to  the  appointment  of  a  special  committee4 
on  the  constitution.  After  the  transfer  thus  to  seventeen 
members  of  the  main  portion  of  the  work  in  hand,  the  con- 
vention quietly  awaited  the  committee's  report.  The  sessions 
of  the  full  convention  occupied  three  more  days  in  June,  on 
the  last  of  which,  June  30,  Samuel  Adams,  in  Philadelphia, 
was  writing  to  his  friend  Warren  :  "  I  find  by  the  Newspapers 
that  the  Genl  Assembly  under  the  Denomination  of  a  Con- 
vention are  forming  a  new  Constitution.  This  is  a  momen- 
tous Business.  I  pray  God  to  direct  you."  5  But  the  pro- 
gress of  the  constituent  work  was  not  rapid.  The  convention 
sat  at  intervals,6  and  noted  the  lack  of  progress  on  the  part 

1  An  incomplete  list  of  this  Assembly  is  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  1 150,  June  ?,  1 777. 

2  Cf.  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Begun  May  28,  1777,  27,  28. 
Few  references  to  the  convention  appear  in  the  house  journal.      Cf  Ibid.,  29,  129. 

3  Jeremiah  Powell  was  chosen  Chairman,  and  Samuel  Freeman,  Clerk. 

4  According  to  James  Savage,  Constitution  of  Alassachusetts,  p.  8,  five 'were 
chosen  at  large,  and  one  of  the  remaining  twelve  was  taken  from  each  of  the 
counties,  except  Dukes  and  Nantucket. 

On  June  17,  the  Convention  appointed  to  this  Committee,  Thos.  Cushing,  John 
Pickering,  James  Prescott,  John  Bliss,  George  Partridge,  Daniel  Davis,  R.  T. 
Paine,  Jos.  Simpson,  Seth  Washburn,  Jeremiah  Powell,  J.  Taylor,  and  John 
Bacon.  On  June  18  the  Convention  appointed  James  Warren,  Azor  Orne,  Noah 
Goodman,  Capt.  Isaac  Stone,  and  Eleazar  Brooks,  at  large.  Mass.  Archives, 
156:  268-274.  The  list  of  the  above  seventeen  is  given  in  the  Boston  Gazette, 
June  23,  1777.  Bradford,  History  of  Mass.,  Boston,  1825,  II.,  140,  gives  a  list  of 
only  twelve,  four  of  the  Council  and  eight  of  the  House. 

Bullock,  Centennial  of  the  Massachusetts  Constitution,  12,  says:  "It  is  one  of 
the  omissions  in  our  annals  that  the  proceedings  of  this  committee  were  never 
given  to  public  inspection."  But  James  Savage  had  a  copy  of  the  journal  of  this 
committee;  see  James  Savage,  Constitution  of  Mass.,  8.  Bullock,  op.  cit.,  12, 
calls  this  "  a  joint  committee  of  the  Council  and  assembly  .  .  .  ." 

5  S.Adams  to  [Jas.  Warren],  Philadelphia,  June  30,  1777.  Adams  Papers, 
IX.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

6  After  July,  the  Convention  met  on  August  14;  and  also  on  September  18, 
when  it  ordered  the  Committee  to  meet  as  often  as  possible. 

The  Convention  met  on  October  2  and  October  16,  and  on  neither  day  was  the 


2 og]  £  °  VERNMEA  T  IN  MA SSA  CHUSE  TTS  2 09 

of  its  committee.  A  contributor  to  the  Massachusetts  Spy1 
wrote,  as  early  as  September,  that  "we  must  soon  expjct 
some  form  or  moddle  of  a  Constitution."  Still  the  committee 
needed  much  prodding,  and  its  report  was  more  than  a  fort- 
night distant  when,  on  November  22,  Samuel  Otis  wrote  to 
Elbridge  Gerry:  "  There  is  great  expectation  of  a  new  form 
of  government  in  our  state.  I  hope  it  will  be  a  good  one, 
and  an  executive  power  will  be  lodged  somewhere  ;  at  present, 
if  there  is  any,  you  would  be  puzzled  to  find  it:  hence  the 
chariot  wheels  drag  so  slowly."  2  At  last,  on  December  1 1, 
the  committee  made  its  report,3  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 
The  convention,  however,  seized  this  opportunity  and  ordered 
300  copies  of  the  report  printed4  solely  for  the  use  of  mem- 
bers of  the  convention,  and  in  January  began  the  active 
consideration  5  of  the  contents.  In  the  earlier  half  of  that 
month   nine  days  were   given   to  the  work,r:  in   the  course  of 

Committee  ready;  on  December  3  the  Committee  asked  for  more  time.  Mass. 
Archives,  156:   268—27^. 

'"A.  B."  in  the  Mass.  Spy,  332;   Sept.  11.,  1777. 

2  Samuel  A.  Otis,  Boston,  Nov.  22,  1777,  to  E.  Gem-.  J.  T.  Austin,  Life  of 
Elbridge  Gerry,  I.,  266. 

3  "John  Adams  has  been  generally  believed  to  have  drawn  up  the  first  report  to 
the  general  committee  of  both  instruments;  .  .  .  .;'  T.  C.  Amory  in  New  Eng- 
land Historic  Genealogical  Society,  commemorative  proceedings,  26.  According 
to  W.  V.  Wells,  Life  of  Samuel  Adams,  III.,  I,  2,  in  the  formation  of  this  con- 
stitution John  and  Samuel  Adams  probably  took  no  part. 

4  A  copy  of  this  edition  of  the  report  and  of  the  Resolve  of  Dec.  II,  1777,  an 
8  pp.  pamphlet,  is  in  the  Sparks  Papers,  XLIX.,  II.,  329,  Harvard  College  Library. 
A  copy  of  the  same,  printed  on  large  paper,  with  the  clerk's  minutes  in  the  mar- 
gin, is  in  Mass.  Archives,  156:  202-210.  A  manuscript  of  the  same,  possibly  as 
used  in  sending  the  matter  to  the  press,  is  in  Mass.  Archives,  156  :  211-233.  ^ 
second  manuscript  is  in  Mass.  Archives,  156:  23I-2  .3. 

5  The  Resolve  of  Dec.  11,  1777,  had  postponed  consideration  of  the  report 
until  the  second  Thursday  of  the  next  session  of  the  Assembly. 

6  Alden  Bradford,  History  of  Massachusetts,  Boston,  1825,  II.,  140,  says  the  com- 
mittee reported  a  draft  of  a  constitution  to  the  Assembly  m  January,  1778.     With 


2  i  o  FR  OM  PR  0  VINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEAL  Til  [  2  i  o 

which  eight  articles  were  accepted,  one  adopted  with  slight 
change,  and  three  recommitted;1  a  fourth,  article  24,  was,  on 
January  31,  recommitted  to  a  special  committee  of  nine. 
The  report2  of  this  committee  was  adopted  on  February  3, 
and  involved  a  rejection  of  the  theories  and  claims  of  those 
who  would  accord  equal  representation  to  all  towns ;  this 
action  was  emphasized  on  the  same  day  by  the  refusal  of  the 
convention  to  approve  the  granting  even  of  a  single  repre- 
sentative to  every  incorporated  town.  The  latter  action, 
however,  was  subsequently  revoked  by  the  convention  when 
less  fully  attended.3 

The  proceedings  of  the  constituent  body  occupied  the 
greater  part  of  February ;  but  their  course  was  marked  by  few 
acts  of  special  note.  The  governor  was  denied  the  veto  power,4 
freedom  of  conscience  and  worship  was  granted  to  Protestants, 
and  the  assembly  was  denied  the  power  to  revise,  at  intervals 
of  seven  years,  the  apportionment  of  representation.     By  an 

equal  inaccuracy,  he  says,  Ibid.,  II.,  158,  that  the  same  committee  reported  a 
draft  of  a  constitution  to  the  Assembly  in  December,  1777,  and  that  this  was  not 
considered  by  the  Assembly  until  February,  1778. 

1  The  Convention  accepted  Articles  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  on  Jan.  15,  Articles  7,  8,  9,  on 
Jan.  16.  Article  12  was  passed  without  the  65-year  age  limit  on  Jan.  23.  Arti- 
cles 6,  10,  and  11  were  recommitted.     Mass.  Archives,  156:  274-282. 

2  This  report  included  the  apportionment  of  one  representative  to  every  town  of 
IOO  voters;  2  representatives  to  3C0  voters;  3  representatives  to  520  voters;  4  rep- 
resentatives to  760  voters,  and  so  up  to  20  representatives  for  7320  or  more  voters. 
An  increment  of  20  was  added  at  each  step  to  the  additional  number  of  voters 
required  for  an  additional  representative.  This  report  was  accepted,  "  81-134." 
Mass.  Archives,    156:283-285. 

3  In  connection  with  Article  24,  an  effort  was  made,  and  defeated,  on  February 
26,  to  give  every  town  one  representative,  and  two  representatives  for  a  town  of 
500  voters,  and  so  an  extra  representative  ior  each  additional  500  voters.  Mass. 
Archives,  156:  288-290.  The  Convention,  on  February  29,  voted  that  each  town 
should  pay  and  send  to  the  Assembly  one  representative.  The  vote  was  probably 
66  out  of  93.     Mass.  Archives,  156:  291-293. 

4  On  February,  24,  by  order  of  the  Convention,  Messrs.  Cushing  and  Pickering 
reported  :   "  1  he  Governor  shall  have  no  negative." 


2  [  i]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  2 1 1 

ominously  scant  vote1  the  whole  document  was  accepted2 
on  February  28.  It  was  ordered  to  be  arranged,  and  600 
copies  were  printed  for  distribution ;  and  on  March  6  the 
committee  on  this  latter  work  was  directed  to  have  the  con- 
stitution printed  in  all  the  Boston  papers.3  "  Then  the  Con- 
vention4 was  dissolved."  By  a  resolution5  of  March  4  the 
assembly  submitted  the  newly  formed  constitution  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  freemen  in  their  town-meetings,  and  suggested 
the  propriety  of  empowering  the  representatives  in  the  next 
assembly  to  establish  the  constitution,  in  case  it  should  have 
been  approved  by  the  people. 

The  document  thus  offered  to  the  people  was  the 
eleventh  constitution  which  had  been  formed  by  recognized 
authority  during  the  revolutionary  period,  and  the  first  upon 
which  an  opportunity  of  action  and  expression  was  granted 
to  the  voting  population.  It  was  merely  a  collection  of  thirty- 
six  unclassified  articles,  preceded  by  a  resolution  of  the  con- 
stituent body.  The  latter  mentioned  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  quotation  was  made  from  the  resolution 
of  the  assembly  of  May  5,  1777,  making  clear  the  authoriza- 
tion of  the  council  and  house  to  act  together  as  a  constituent 
body  and  to  submit  to  the  people  the  constitution  they  had 

1  39  out  of  53. 

2  Bullock,  Centennial  of  Mass.  Constitution,  p.  12,  loosely  and  inaccurately  says 
it  "was  approved  by  the  two  bodies  February  28th ;  1778,  .  .  ." 

3  The  Constitution  and  the  Assembly  Resolve  of  March  4  were  published  in  the 
Boston  Gazette,  no.  1229,  March  23,  1778,  with  no  comment  except  that  some  ad- 
vertisements were  crowded  out.  See  the  Constitution  also  in  the  Independent 
Chronicle,  no.  500,  March  19,  1778,  and  in  the  Mass.  Spy,  no.  361,  April  2,  1778. 
The  Constitution  and  the  Assembly  Resolve  of  March  4,  1778,  were  published  in 
1778,  at  Boston,  by  J.  Gill,  Printer  to  the  General  Assembly.  A  copy  of  this 
pamphlet  is  in  the  Library  of  Harvard  College.  The  Constitution  has  been 
printed  in  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  iyjg-80,  Boston,  1832,  255-264. 

*The  Proceedings  are  in  Mass.  Archives,  156:  268-293. 

5  The  original  is  in  Mass.  Archives,  217:  292-294. 


212  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [2\2 

formed.  In  the  constitution  itself  appeared  no  preamble, 
aside  from  what  has  been  already  indicated  ;  nor  did  it  con- 
tain a  declaration  of  rights.  There  was  no  assurance  of  general 
religious  freedom  or  of  civil  liberty.  There  was  no  declara- 
tion concerning  the  nature  or  the  theory  of  the  state.  The 
provisions  concerning  the  organization  of  government 
were  not  of  unusual  excellence.  An  annual  bicameral 
legislature  was  established  ;  the  basis  of  representation  was 
for  each  house  distinct.  For  the  lowrer  house  the  principle 
of  town  representation  obtained ;  every  incorporated  town 
was  "  entitled  "  to  one  representative,  a  town  of  300  voters 
might  send  two,  a  town  of  520  voters  might  send  three;  the 
increment  necessary  to  secure  an  additional  representative 
being  at  each  advance  increased  by  twenty.  The  number  of 
senators,  however,  was  fixed  at  twenty-eight,  chosen  un- 
equally from  four  districts.  Both  the  representatives  and 
senators  were  to  be  voted  for  at  the  May  elections,  but  in  the 
case  of  the  latter  preliminary  steps  were  required  as  well. 
These  were  that  in  November  of  each  year  the  voters  in  town- 
meetings  should  nominate  for  each  district  candidates  to  be 
considered  at  the  May  elections.  The  result  of  such  nomi- 
nation by  ballot  should  be  submitted  to  the  General  Court, 
from  which  was  returned,  for  final  choice  at  the  subsequent 
spring  elections,  a  list  of  those  highest  on  the  list  of  nominees 
and  double  the  number  of  senators  assigned  to  the  respect- 
ive districts.  In  the  election  of  representatives  the  franchise 
was  granted  to  every  free  male  of  full  age,1  who  had  paid 
taxes,  unless  excused,  and  who  had  resided  one  full  year 
preceding  the  election  in  the  town  where  he  claimed  the 
right  to  vote  ;  or  who,  in  broad  terms,  was  one  of  whom 
"such  town  has  been  his  known  and  usual  place  of  abode  for 
that  time,  or  that  he  is  considered  as  an  inhabitant  thereof; 
.   .   .   ."     The  electors  of  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor, 

1  The  franchise,  however,  was  withheld  from  negroes,  Indians,  and  niulattoes. 


213]  G0  VERNMF<NT  IN  MASSA  CHUSE TTS  2 1 3 

and  senators,  should  be  similarly  qualified,  but  should  in  ad- 
dition be  "  worth  sixty  pounds,  clear  of  all  charges  thereon, 
.  .  .  ."  It  was  required  that  senators  and  representatives1 
should  have  been,  for  one  year  preceding  the  election,  in- 
habitants of  the  districts  or  towns  they  represented.  Each 
member  of  the  upper  house,  furthermore,  should  own  an  es- 
tate of  ,£400,  at  least  one-half  of  which  should  be  realty  in 
the  district  he  represented  ;  and  each  member  of  the  lower 
house  should  own  an  estate  of  at  least  £200,  one-half  of 
which  should  be  realty  in  the  town  represented.  To  the 
bodies  thus  created  were  granted  the  usual  privileges  of 
control  over  their  own  procedure,  and  the  usual  functions, 
the  lower  house  receiving  important  special  powers,  among 
which  was  that  of  originating  all  money  bills,  which  should 
"  be  concurred  or  non-concurred  in  whole  by  the  Senate." 
To  the  General  Court  was  assigned  the  creation  of  judicial 
courts,  but  it  was  provided  that  the  judges  should  hold  office 
during  good  behavior,  and  from  the  terms  used  it  was 
apparent  that  a  continuation  of  the  previously  existing 
system  was  intended. 

The  chief  of  the  executive  department,  the  governor,  was 
to  be  elected  annually  on  the  franchise  already  indicated  ;  his 
own  qualifications  were  to  be  a  residence  in  the  state  for  five 
years  preceding  his  election,  and  the  possession  of  an  estate 
of  ;£iooo,  at  least  one-half  of  which  was  to  be  realty  within  the 
commonwealth.  A  further  qualification  of  importance,  which 
applied  as  well  to  the  lieutenant-governor,  the  senators,  repre- 
sentatives, and  all  judicial  officers,  was  that  they  should  be- 
lieve in  the  Protestant  religion.  The  executive,  furthermore, 
was  peculiarly  limited.     The  power  of  pardon,  thus,  was  vested 

1 A  seat  in  the  General  Court  was  refused  to  Judges  of  the  Superior  Court,  Sec- 
retary, Treasurer  General,  Commissary  General,  and  settled  Ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel, and  military  officers  under  pay;  a  seat  in  the  Senate  was  refused  to  Judges 
and  Registers  of  Probate.     Art.  4. 


214  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [214 

in  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor  and  speaker  of  the  house, 
or  any  two  of  them.  The  governor's  powers  as  head  of  the 
military  forces  were  placed  under  the  control  of  the  General 
Court.  The  power  of  the  executive  to  prorogue  the  General 
Court  during  a  recess,  to  issue  public  money  by  warrant, 
and  in  most  cases  the  appointing  power,  were  modified  by 
the  provision  which  made  it  compulsory  for  the  governor  to 
act  on  the  advice  of  the  senate.  Of  this  body  the  governor, 
as  such,  was  a  member  with  voting  power,  and  it  was  pro- 
vided that  he  should  have  "  no  negative,  as  Governor,  in  any 
matter  pointed  out  by  this  constitution  to  be  done  by  the 
Governor  and  Senate,"  although  for  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness the  presence  of  himself  or  of  the  lieutenant-governor 
was  necessary. 

For  the  less  important  functions  of  government  im- 
perfect provision  was  made  in  several  further  disconnected 
articles.  The  common  law  and  the  statute  law  previously 
recognized  in  the  courts  were  to  remain  in  force,"  and  all 
parts  of  such  law  as  refer  to  and  mention  the  council  shall 
be  construed  to  extend  to  the  Senate."  Complete  in  some 
particulars,  in  others  the  document  was  inadequate  either  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  situation  or  to  coincide  with  the  ideals 
of  the  public,  as  soon  was  made  plain  in  the  action  of  the 
towns. 

§3.  Submission  of  the  Constitution 

In  no  series  of  acts  had  the  provisional  governments 
shown  the  possibilities  of  their  position  more  distinctly  than 
in  the  manner  in  which  the  newly  formed  constitutions 
were  promulgated  or  established.  Sufficient  care  was  not 
taken  by  the  controlling  powers  to  secure  final  sanction 
by  the  people.  The  seriousness  of  such  arbitrary  pro- 
cedure cannot  be  underestimated,  although  at  the  time  an  t 
harmonious  majority  waived  all  questions  of  propriety  in 
view  of  the  greater  problem  involving  their  very  existence  as 


215]  G0 VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  2I$ 

political  societies  ;  regardless  of  constitutional  details,  practi- 
cal unity  of  action  must  be  assured,  and  the  state,  as  they 
conceived  it,  must  be  preserved.  To  effect  this  the  majority 
must  express  unopposed  the  will  of  the  whole  political 
society;  the  minority  must  be  unheard,  unfelt.  Thus  with 
warfare  on  all  sides,  with  tories  in  many  sections,  with  booming 
of  British  guns  often  audible  even  in  a  constituent  convention, 
it  was  certainly  a  time  when  the  "  disaffected "  minority 
should  be  kept  silent.  To  prevent  the  possibility  of  any  ex- 
pression from  this  quarter,  was  the  need  of  the  politician  ;  to 
meet  this  difficulty,  and  to  respond  to  the  further  exigencies 
of  the  time,  the  salutary,  even  if  thoroughly  arbitrary,  prac- 
tice just  mentioned  was  adopted.  The  shifting  of  the  seat  of 
war  relieved  Massachusetts  of  one  of  the  strong  reasons  for 
such  procedure;  the  unity  and  patriotism  of  her  population 
removed  any  fear  of  an  actually  hostile  minority  ;  and  the  exist- 
ence already  of  a  frame  of  government  which  was  useful  for 
temporary  purposes  freed  the  attempt  to  change  the  govern- 
mental system  from  any  danger  of  violence  at  the  hands  of 
the  minority.  Breaking  wholly  with  the  past,  and  yielding 
to  the  desires  of  the  people  which  had  been  distinctly  stated, 
the  assembly  of  Massachusetts  made  suitable  arrangements 
for  the  submission  of  this  new  constitution  of  1778  to  the 
people.  In  accordance  with  the  direction  of  the  assembly, 
the  constitution  was  transmitted  to  the  various  boards  of 
selectmen,  whose  duty  it  became  both  to  submit  the  docu- 
ment to  the  voters  assembled  in  town-meeting  and  to  make 
official  return  to  the  secretary  of  the  commonwealth  of  the 
action  taken  thereon  by  the  town. 

The  opportunity  thus  afforded  for  local  action  was  quickly 
developed  into  an  occasion  for  definite  and  vigorous  expres- 
sion of  local  sentiment.  Seldom  was  the  return  of  a  local 
vote  unaccompanied  by  some  plain  criticism  or  blunt  sug- 
gestion ;   so  that  for  the  varied  actions  of  the  towns  ample 


2i6  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [216 

and  equally  various  reasons  were  given,  all  expressing  the 
opinions  of  the  majority  of  voters  in  each  locality  with  clear- 
ness sufficient  for  their  own  satisfaction.  In  the  announce- 
ment of  general  theories  and  the  argument  on  local  advan- 
tages may  be  read  the  popular  indictment  of  the  proffered 
constitution.  No  demand  was  more  general  than  that  for  a 
bill  of  rights  which  should  embody  the  best  results  of  ex- 
perience and  the  highest  impulses  of  the  present;  a  statement 
which,  as  the  town  of  Beverly  instructed  its  representative, 
"  we  conceive,  ought  to  describe  the  Natural  Rights  of  Man 
as  he  inherits  them  from  the  Great  Parents  of  Nature,  dis- 
tinguishing those,  the  Controul  of  which  he  may  part  with  to 
Society  for  Social  Benefits  from  those  he  cannot;"1  or  which, 
"  Clearly  Asserting  the  rights  of  the  people,  as  men,  Chris- 
tians, &  Subjects,  Ought  to  have  Preceeded  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  these  Rights  should  be  Express'd  in  the  fullest  and 
and  most  unequivocal  terms."2  So  the  town  of  Greenwich 
early  rejected  the  instrument  as  it  "  Intirely  Divests  the 
good  People  of  this  State  of  Many  of  the  Priviledges  which 
God  and  Nature  has  Given  them,"3  and  its  vote  was  con- 
firmed by  the  action  of  many  other  towns.  Incomplete 
theoretically,  the  constitution  was  deemed  practically  ineffect- 
ive and  indefensible.  The  improper  composition  of  the 
convention,  the  illegal  action  of  some  of  its  members,4 
and  the  absence  of  any  mode  of  amendment  "  Except  by 
Coercion  and  Violence,"5  were  a  few  among  many  facts  serv- 

1  June  I,  1778,  Mass.  Archives,  156:  429-432. 

2  Plymouth,  May  18-June  1,  1778.     Mass.  Archives,  156:  426. 

3  May  5,  1778.     Mass.  Archives,  156:  275. 

*  E.  g. :  "  A  By-Stander,"  advising  the  Convention  :  "  Within  the  walls  of  your 
house,  gentlemen,  there  are  those  who  were  never  empowered  by  the  electors  to 
assisting  in  forming  a  Constitution;  .  .  .  ."  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  492* 
Jan.  22,  1778. 

6  Plymouth  Committee  Report,  May  18-Junei,  1778.     Mass.  Archives,  156:  426. 


217]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  2  I  7 

ing  to  emphasize  the  opportunity,  which  was  readily  taken, 
for  searching  and  severe  criticism.  Thus  even  little  Peter- 
sham proposed,  among  other  things,  to  economize  by  elect- 
ing a  senate  from  the  house,  suggested  a  property  qualifica- 
tion for  electors  and  an  increased  quorum  in  each  house,1 
objected  to  a  final  negative  in  either  house,  grappled  with 
the  problem  of  corruption,  decried  even  such  titles  as  gov- 
ernor and  lieutenant-governor,  and  expressed  its  purpose  "to 
put  a  stopt  to  the  first  seeds  of  eclesiastical  tyranny;"  for 
"  Lords  Spiritual  soon  become  Lords  Temporal.  .   .  "2 

Very  creditable  was  the  thoroughness  of  the  considera- 
tion,3 as  well  as  the  confident  directness  of  the  instructions 
given  to  the  representatives.  Attention  was  called  to  a 
great  variety  of  excellences  and  defects.  Thus  some  would 
even  advocate  the  abolition  of  the  offices  of  governor  and 
lieutenant-governor,  and  of  the  senate;4  others  girded  them- 
selves for  a  vigorous  contest  over  the  relations  between 
church  and  state  ; 5  still  others  urged  the  inconsistency  of  grant- 
ing a  voice  either  in  sanctioning  or  disapproving  the  con- 

1  Cf  Result  of  the  Convention  at  Ipswich,  p.  5. 

2  Mass  Spy,  no.  368,  May  21,  1778. 

3  The  town  of  Royalston,  in  its  meetings  of  April  9,  May  4,  and  May  27,  adopted 
and  recommended  a  new  constitution  of  35  articles.    Mass.  Archives,  156  1306-31 7. 

"  An  Old  Roman "  who  plans  to  "  follow  the  vestigia  and  traces  of  nature, 
.  .  ."  published  anew  constitution,  in  the  Boston  Gazette, no.  1230,  April  13, 1778, 
in  which  provision  was  made  for  one  legislative  chamber  and  no  real  executive. 
Cf.  Lexington,  June  15.  Mass.  Archives,  160:  24.  Cf  Boothbay,  May  20. 
Mass.  Archives,  156:  368-373. 

4  Cf.  Greenwich,  May  5.  Mass.  Archives,  156:  275.  Cf.  Independent  Chron- 
icle, 501,  Mar.  26,  1778,  where  "  Occolampadius  "  objected  to  Gov.,  l.t.  Gov.,  and 
Council,  and  proposed  the  appointment  of  town  officers  by  the  towns  and  of 
county  officers  by  county  conventions. 

5  Cf.  Letter  by  "  Mentor  "  in  Boston  Gazette,  Jan.  26,  1778;  letters  by  "  Hierony- 
mus"  in  Ibid.^ox.  2,  1778,  Dec.  28,  1778,  Jan.  18,  1779;  letters  by  Isaac  Backus 
in  Ibid.,  Dec.  14,  1778,  Feb.  22,  1779;  cf.  Ibid.,  Feb.  1,  1779,  et passim. 

Cf.  Isaac  Backus,  A  Church  History  of  New  England,  Providence,  1 784,  II.,  322. 


2i8  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [2l8 

stitution  to  those  black  and  copper  colored  persons  who 
were  to  be  by  it  forever  afterwards  disfranchised.1  "  A 
Watchman"  voiced  a  proper  sentiment  when  he  com- 
plained that  an  insufficient  period  was  allowed  for  public 
consideration  of  the  document.1  The  height  of  philosophy 
and  philanthropy  was  attained  by  the  men  of  Georgetown 
when  they  offered  their  objection  "  because  in  the  Fifth  a 
man  being  born  in  Africa,  India  or  ancient  America  or  even 
being  much  Sun  burnt  deprived  him  of  having  a  Vote  for 
Representative."2  On  the  more  positive  side  appeared  a 
variety  of  suggestions  about  the  exercise  of  the  constituent 
power,  the  composition  of  the  legislative  bodies,3  and 
the  basis  of  representation.  A  demand  was  made  for  rota- 
tion in  office;4  and  a  clearer  demarcation  between  executive 
and  legislative  functions  was  proposed.5     To  many  minds, 

1  Cf.  Mass.  Spy,  no.  364,  April  23,  1778. 

2  May  25,  1778,  Mass.  Archives,  156:  407. 

Sutton,  May  18,  voted  that  this  article  seemed  "to  wear  a  very  gross  complex  - 
tion  of  slavery,"  and  to  be  repugnant  to  the  "grand  and  Fundamental  maxim  of 
Human  Rights,  viz.  '  Thai  Law  to  boind  all  must  be  assented  to  by  all.''  "  Mass. 
Archives,  156:  347-358. 

"The  complexion  of  the  fifth  article  is  blacker  than  that  of  any  African,  .  .  ." 
wrote  Dr.  Gordon,  under  date  of  April  2,  1778,  in  Continental  Journal,  no.  98, 
April  9,  1778. 

3  On  one  line  in  this  connection  an  extreme  was  reached  when  Rehoboth,  June 
I,  1778,  proposed  a  law  "  enabling  each  town  in  this  State  at  any  time,  to  elect  a 
Representative  or  Representatives  to  represent  them  in  the  great  Convention  or 
General  Court,  and  thereby  to  recall  their  former  Representative  or  Representa- 
tives as  the  pleasure  of  any  town  may  be,  or  to  add  to  their  present  number  simi- 
lar to  the  power  of  this  State,  of  sending  or  recalling  their  Delegates  to  or  from 
the  honorable  Congress,  .  .  .  ."  Continental  Journal  and  Weekly  Advertiser, 
CXLI.,  Feb.  4,  1779. 

4  Cf.  Mass.  Spy,  no.  377,  July  23,  1778. 

5  "  I  shall  attempt  to  convince  you,  that  the  placing  the  legislative  and  executive 
powers  in  the  same  hands  is  unconstitutional,  impolitic,  oppressive  and  absurd." 
"O.  P.  Q."  in  Mass.  Spy,  no.  266,  May  18,  1776. 

Cf.:    "It    is  essential   to   Liberty  that    the    legislative,  judicial,  &    executive 


2  1 9]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA  CHUSETTS  2  1 9 

however,  the  crucial  point  was  the  article  on  the  basis  of  rep- 
resentation. The  town  of  Boston,  after  denying  the  pro- 
priety of  the  action  of  the  assembly  on  constituent  matters 
and  after  dwelling  on  the  lack  of  a  bill  of  rights,  declared,  as 
to  its  third  point,  that  "  reason,  justice  and  common  sense, 
must  be  tortured  to  a  great  degree  to  accept  that  representa- 
tion, as  equal  which  may  be  as  ten  or  twenty  to  one." x 
Boston's  rejection  of  the  document  was  unanimous;2  and 
with  Boston  went  the  state.  It  was  not,  however,  as 
*'  Philadelphus  "  had  prophesied,3  a  contest  over  the  suffrage 
between  the  property  holders  and  others.  If  a  single  utter- 
ance may  be  taken  as  a  correct  description  of  the  cause  and 
course  of  action  in  the  campaign,  it  was  doubtless  that  of 
Samuel  Cooper  when  he  sent  to  Franklin  a  "printed  copy  of 
our  proposed  constitution,  which,"  he  wrote,  "  has  been  re- 
jected in  a  very  full  meeting  of  this  Town,  and  is  like  to  be 
by  many  others  for  different  reasons ;  particularly,  because 
in  the  opinion  of  the  maritime  towns,  Representation  is  too 
unequal,4  while  in  the  opinion  of  others  it  is  too  nearly 
equal."5  The  ready  estimates  of  possible  disproportion 
between  the  taxes  paid  by  various  sections  and  their 
population  and  representation  in  future  legislatures  devel- 
oped   a    strong    argument    for    one    party;     on    the    other 

Powers  of  Government  be,  as  nearly  as  possibly,  independent  of  &  separate 
from  each  other;  .  .  .  ."  Instructions  of  Boston  town-meeting,  May  23,  30, 
1776,  to  representatives.     Boston  Town  Records,  XVIII.,  238. 

1  May  25,  1778.  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  51 1,  June  4,  1778.  Wm.  Gordon 
wrote  that  "  such  is  the  plan  in  the  sixth  article,  that  no  power  or  wisdom  can 
make  it  equal,  that  excepted  which  formed  a  beautiful  world  out  of  a  chaos." 
Indepe7ident  Chronicle,  no.  504,  April  16,  1778.     Cf.  Essex  Result,  4. 

2  The  vote  was  968-0.  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  511,  June  4,  1778.  Boston 
Town  Records,  XXVI.,  22-24. 

3  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  452,  April  17,  1777. 

4  Cf.  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  1833,  I.,  818,  819. 

5  June  I,  1778.     Copy  in  Spares  Papers,  XVI.,  252,  253. 


220  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [220 

hand  the  opposing  party  were  firm  in  the  demands  of  the 
present;1  and  the  effect  of  the  antagonism  of  interests  com- 
plicated by  the  diversity  of  political  theories  was  not  merely 
a  failure  to  secure  the  approbation  of  two-thirds  of  the  voters, 
but  a  hearty  and  decisive  rejection.2 

In  this  whole  movement  Boston  had  been  a  center  of 
strong  opposition  ;  and  of  its  writers  none  had  been  more 
facile  and  effective  than  the  clergyman  of  Roxbury,  William 
Gordon,  who  had  already  written  widely  and  well  on  the 
politics  of  the  time.  He  now  directed  against  the  proposed 
constitution  a  series  of  four  comparatively  moderate  but 
weighty  articles,3  the  first  of  which,  treating  in  a  somewhat 
incisive  manner  the  conduct  of  the  General  Court,  occasioned 
his  summary   removal   from   the   office   of    chaplain   to  that 

1  As  to  division  of  parties  on  lines  of  personal  following  about  this  time,  see 
Durand,  New  Materials  for  History  of  American  Revolution,  18,  19. 

2 "  Boston,  October  8.  We  hear  that  the  return  made  to  the  General  Court 
from  the  several  towns  and  plantations  respecting  the  constitution  of  government 
lately  agreed  upon  by  the  convention  of  this  State,  are  as  follows,  viz. :  Yeas 
2083.  Nays  9972.  N.  B.  129  towns  and  plantations  have  made  no  return." 
Mass.  Spy,  no.  389,  Oct.  15,  1778.  Works  of  John  Adams,  IV.,  214,  gives  120 
as  the  number  of  towns  not  reporting.  The  votes  of  39  towns  on  the  consti- 
tution as  submitted  are  given  in  full  in  A/ass.  Archives,  160:  l— 31.  Considering 
126  towns,  only  one  county  (Barnstable)  gave  a  majority  for  the  constitution; 
there  was  a  unanimous  vote  for  the  constitution  in  4  towns,  a  unanimous  vote 
against  it  in  57  towns.  Savage,  Constitution  of  Alass.,  p.  8.  Of  these  four 
favorable  towns,  the  vote  of  Hardwick,  May  19,  1778,  was  68-0.  Lincoln 
Papers. 

The  house  members  of  the  joint  committee  to  examine  the  returns  were  Col. 
Brown  of  Pittsfield,  Col.  Brown  of  Reading,  and  Capt.  Brown  of  Watertown; 
they  were  appointed  June  17,  1778.  The  committee,  somewhat  changed  in  the 
interval,  made  its  report  October  8,  1778.  "Journal  of  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

On  May  3r,  1778,  James  Warren,  wrote  to  Samuel  Adams:  "...  with 
regard  to  the  Constitution  I  am  of  the  Opinion  it  will  not  prevail,  &  that  An- 
archy &  Confusion  will  take  place  before  we  have  one  settled  .  .  .  ."  Adams 
Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

3  These  letters  are  in  the  Independent  Chronicle,  nos.  502,  503,  504,  506; 
April  2,  9,  16,  30,  1778. 


22  1 1  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  22  I 

body.1  These  articles  contained  not  only  a  discussion  of  the 
liberal  treatment  by  the  convention  of  the  resolve  adopted 
by  the  assembly  on  May  5,  1777,  but  also  an  objection  to 
the  establishment  by  two-thirds  of  those  now  actually  exer- 
cising the  suffrage,  of  a  constitution  that  could  be  altered 
only  by  two-thirds  of  those  who  by  it  were  qualified  to  vote.2 
The  proposal  of  a  triple  nomination  by  the  governor  and 
senate  to  each  office  which  was  to  be  filled  by  the  house  of 
representatives  was  also  the  object  of  unfavorable  criticism. 
Further,  in  the  main,  his  remarks  were  only  one  expression 
among  many  on  the  leading  points  then  under  discussion, 
such  as  religion,  representation,  and  suffrage;  but  his  prom- 
inence in  press  and  pulpit  gave  a  special  influence  to  his 
words. 

In  the  third  letter  of  this  series  Gordon  alluded  to  an  event 
which  can  easily  be  conceived  to  have  been  the  main  cause 
of  the  general  dissatisfaction  with  the  constitution  of  1778, 
and  which,  with  the  activity  of  Boston,  has  given  to  the  coast 
districts  the  credit,  or  discredit,  of  the  defeat  of  the  plan  it 
contained.  "  I  rejoice,"  he  wrote,  "  that  a  county  Conven- 
tion is  likely  to  be  held  in  Essex,"3  and  the  day  before  this 
appeared  in  print  the  Essex  county  convention  had  begun 
its  work  at  Ipswich.  When  the  town  of  Newburyport,  on 
March  27,  took  a  definite  stand  against  the  newly  proposed 
method  of  representation,  it  asked  its  selectmen  to  suggest  a 
county  convention  to  which  each  town  should  send  as  many 
delegates  as  each  sent  representatives  to  the  house.  Theo- 
philus   Parsons4  and  four  associates  were  appointed  as  dele- 

1  Cf-  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  April  4,  6,  1778. 

2  Gloucester,  April  13,  adopted  report  of  a  committee  noting  the  inconsistency 
of  two-thirds  of  the  freemen  establishing  a  constitution,  and  two-thirds  of  the 
inhabitants  altering  it.     Lincoln  Papers. 

3  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  504,  April  16,  1778. 

4  As  to  the  convention,  Theophilus  Parsons,  Jr.,  wrote :  "  It  originated  in  New- 
buryport, and  I  have  been  repeatedly  told  that  my  father  began  it;  but  I  have  no 
evidence  of  this."     Memoir  of  Theophilus  Parsons,  47. 


22  2  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  T222 

gates  from  Newburyport.  April  15  was  fixed  as  the  time, 
and  Mr.  Treadwell's  tavern  at  Ipswich1  as  the  place,  of  meet- 
ing. Some  towns,  including  at  first  Danvers2  and  Beverly,3 
did  not  join  in  the  program ;  but  a  dozen  towns  took  some 
such  action  as  that  of  Gloucester,  when  Peter  Coffin  and  two 
associates  were  appointed  to  attend  the  convention  "  to  ad- 
vise some  decent  and  proper  methods  in  which  all  the  free- 
men of  this  state  may  enjoy  a  form  of  Government  consonant 
to  the  natural  rights  of  mankind  and  the  principles  of  a  free 
Constitution."4 

At  Ipswich,  at  the  time  appointed,  more  than  a  score 
of  delegates  assembled,5  but  they  placed  themselves  on 
record  in  no  important  action  until  the  session  of  April  29, 
when  a  series  of  eighteen  resolutions  was  passed  summariz- 
ing the  case  against  the  constitution,  and  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  show  the  lack  of  agreement  between  that  docu- 
ment and  the  views  thus  expressed,  and  to  outline,  as  well,  a 
new  form  of  government.  On  May  12  the  report  of  this  com- 
mittee was  made  and  was  approved  by  the  convention.  The 
earlier  resolutions  and  the  report  of  the  committee  were  at 

]  A  sketch  of  the  various  proceedings  of  the  town  of  Ipswich  in  the  years  1 775 — 
1 780  is  given  in  Felt.  History  of  Ipswich,  132-134. 

"April  13,  1778;   Lincoln  Papers. 

3  But  both  Danvers  and  Beverly  subsequently  acceded  to  the  action  of  the  con- 
vention;  see  Mass.  Archives,  156:   192-196. 

4  Lincoln  Papers. 

5  A  list  of  28  delegates,  representing  12  towns  (nine  towns  not  being  reported), 
is  given  in  Memoir  of  Tiieophilus  Parsons,  49,  50. 

Of  the  proceedings  of  this  convention  only  two  half  sheets  were  subsequently 
preserved;  these  were  owned  by  Theophilus  Parsons,  Jr. ;  see  his  Memoir  of 
Theophilus  Parsons,  50.  They  contained  the  vote  in  opposition  to  Art.  34  of  the 
Declaration  of  Rights,  "because  the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  pro- 
fession and  worship  are  there  said  to  be  allowed  to  all  the  Protestants  in  this 
State,  when  in  fact  that  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  is  the  natural  and  incon- 
trollable  right  of  every  member  of  the  State."     Quoted  in  Ibid.,  p.  50. 


223]  G  °  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  22% 

once  published1  in  a  pamphlet  of  68  pages,  which  through- 
out the  summer  served  as  a  strong  weapon  for  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  constitution.  In  this  so-called  "  Essex  Result"2 
were  gathered  all  the  stronger  elements  of  the  political  teach- 
ings of  the  past;  in  it  was  expressed  at  its  best  the  oppo- 
sition to  the  constitution  of  1778;  and  with  it  opened  the 
new  period  which  was  to  see  the  successful  establishment  of 
the  constitution  of  1780.  This  product  of  the  convention 
was  a  striking  example  of  the  intellectual  activity  of  the  time, 
while  even  in  the  broader  field  it  formed  a  land-mark  that 
still  stands,  containing,  as  Judge  White  later  wrote,3  "  beyond 
any  other  political  document  of  that  day,  a  clear  exposition 
of  the  principles  upon  which  the  organic  laws  of  a  free  state 
should  be  founded, — the  very  principles  essentially  adopted 
in  forming  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts."4  Savage 
tersely  called  it  "  the  most  admirable  condensation  of  politi- 
cal wisdom,  that  our  country,  or  perhaps  any  country,  in  so 
small  compass  had  ever  produced."5 

Eleven  principles  were  by  this  committee  adduced  as  those 
which  then  seemed  to  be  established.  The  first  was  that  the 
supreme  power  was  limited  to  the  control  of  those  alienable 
rights  surrendered  by  a  man  when  he  entered  society;   so- 

1 A  large  edition  was  printed.     Memoir  of  Theophilus  Parsons,  47. 

2  Newbury-Port,  Printed  and  Sold  by  John  Mycall.  The  text  has  been  re- 
printed in  Memoir  of  1  heophilus  Parsons,  359-402. 

3To  T.  Parsons,  Sept.  15,  1858;   Memoir  of  Theophilus  Parsons,  454,  455. 

4  The  Independent  Chronicle,  no.  512,  June  II,  1778,  had  an  advertisement  of 
the  "  Essex  Result,"  which  included  :  "  In  this  excellent  Performance,  the  Prin- 
ciples of  a  free  republican  Form  of  Government  have  been  attempted,  some 
Reasons  in  support  of  them  mentioned  the  out  Lines  of  Constitution  have  been 
delineated  in  Conformity  to  them,  and  the  Objections  to  the  Form  of  Government 
proposed  to  the  People  at  large,  for  their  Acceptance  or  Rejtction,  have  been 
stated." 

5  Savage,  Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  8.  For  a  further  characterization,  see 
Mevioir  of  Theophilus  Parsons,  53. 


224  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [224 

ciety  was  "one  moral  whole"  possessing  supreme  power. 
"This  supreme  power  is  composed  of  the  powers  of  each 
individual  collected  together,  and  VOLUNTARILY  parted  with 
by  him.  No  individual,  in  this  case,  parts  with  his  unalien- 
able rights,  the  supreme  power  therefore  cannot  controul 
them."  J  Their  second  principle  was  that  the  inalienable 
rights  and  the  equivalent  of  those  alienated  must  be  clearly 
expressed  before  any  constitution  can  be  ratified.  "  Over 
the  class  of  unalienable  rights  the  supreme  power  hath  no 
controul,  and  they  ought  to  be  clearly  defined  and  ascer- 
tained in  a  Bill  of  Rights,  previous  to  the  ratification  of 
any  constitution.  The  bill  of  rights  should  also  contain  the 
equivalent  every  man  receives,  as  a  consideration  for  the 
rights  he  has  surrendered."2  Recognition  was  given  the 
wisdom  of  securing  the  inter-balancing  of  the  three  depart- 
ments of  government  and  the  independence  of  each.  The 
executive  was  declared  to  be  most  effective  if  vested  in  one 
or  a  few ;  the  enactment  of  laws,  however,  was  improved  by 
the  concurrence  of  men  of  all  classes;  yet  elsewhere  they 
described  the  law-making  body  as  "  the  whole  body  politic, 
with  all  its  property,  rights,  and  priviledges,  reduced  to  a 
smaller  scale,"3  and  furthermore  said  that  "  it  is  necessary 
that  the  law  be  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  which  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  a  majority  of  the  members,  and  that  majority 
should  include  those,  who  possess  a  major  part  of  the  prop- 
erty in  the  state."4  Their  series  of  principles  included  refer- 
ence to  the  rights  of  the  majority,  and  an  insistence  upon  the 
necessity  of  equal  political  liberty;   "  political  liberty,"  they 

1  Essex  Result,  13,  14. 

2 Ibid.,  15.  On  page  16  it  is  stated:  "Allegiance  and  protection  are  recip- 
rocal." 

3  Ibid.,  29. 

4  Ibid.,  23.  On  page  28  it  is  said  that  a  law  affecting  persons  or  property  to  be 
valid  should  have  the  consent  of  a  majority,  "  which  majority  should  include 
those,  who  hold  a  major  part  of  the  property  in  the  state." 


225]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  2  2  5 

say  elsewhere,  "  is  the  right  every  man  in  the  state  has,  to  do 
whatever  is  not  prohibited  by  laws,  TO  WHICH  HE  GIVES  HIS 
CONSENT."1 

The  consideration  of  the  proposed  constitution  by  the 
authors  of  the  Essex  Result  was  in  such  detail2  that  their  ob- 
jections were  convincing.3  Many  specific  points  were  treated 
and  the  committee  finally  were  "compelled,  though  reluct- 
antly, to  say,  that  some  of  the  principles  upon  which  it  is 
founded,  appeared  to  them  inconsonant,  not  only  to  the 
natural  rights  of  mankind,  but  to  the  fundamental  condition 
of  the  original  social  contract,  and  the  principles  of  a  free 
republican   government."4     An  excellent    statement   of    the 

1  Essex  Result,  14. 

2  E.  g.  As  to  Article  2,  objection  is  made  to  the  governor's  membership  in  the 
senate.  As  to  Article  3,  it  is  held  that  the  property  qualification  of  the  governor 
is  too  small,  and  that  the  value  of  an  estate  is  not  well  determined,  the  currency 
varying  as  it  does.     Essex  Result,  41. 

As  to  Article  10,  the  mode  of  electing  the  governor  is  said  to  be  conducive  to 
bribery  and  corruption;  they  aim  to  prove  this  by  referring  to  a  similar  mode 
earlier  in  use  in  Rhode  Island,  where  the  governor  retained  his  office  by  open 
bribery.     Essex  Result,  43,  44. 

Objection  is  made  that  the  quorum  in  each  house  is  too  small;  it  is  held  that 
every  officer  should  be  subject  to  impeachment.  The  articles  of  the  document  are 
taken  up  seriatim  in  the  report  of  this  committee,  resulting  thus  in  the  presenta- 
tion of  much  detail. 

3 E.g.:  As  to  Article  6,  the  plan  of  representation  is  said  to  be  "grossly  un- 
equal" and  "flagrantly  unjust;"  thus  20  towns  might  have  40  representatives 
and  one  town  of  sufficient  size  might  have  19  representatives;  it  would  be  possible 
for  about  one-twelfth  of  the  representatives  to  bind  the  whole  state;  in  a  century 
the  house  would  be  a  "  mere  mob."     Essex  Result,  42,  43. 

Objection  is  made  that  the  constitution  "  was  formed  by  gentlemen,  who,  at  the 
same  time,  had  a  large  share  in  conducting  an  important  war,  and  who  were 
employed  in  carrying  into  execution  almost  all  the  various  powers  of  government." 
Essex  Result,  7,  8. 

It  is  maintained  that  the  executive  checks  on  the  legislative  department  are  not 
sufficient  to  prevent  encroachments.  "  Without  this  check  the  legislative  power 
will  exercise  the  executive,  and  in  a  series  of  years  the  government  will  be  as 
absolute  as  that  of  Holland."     Essex  Result,  46. 

4  Essex  Result,  41. 


226  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [226 

situation  was  presented,1  and  the  foresight  so  characteristic 
of  the  times  was  indicated  in  the  words :  "  We  are  not  at- 
tempting to  form  a  temporary  constitution,  one  adjusted 
only  to  our  present  circumstances."2 

1 E. g.:  "Perhaps  their  situation  is  more  favorable  in  some  respects,  for  erect- 
ing a  free  government,  than  any  other  people  were  ever  favored  with.  That  at- 
tachment to  old  forms,  which  usually  embarrasses,  has  not  place  amongst  them. 
They  have  the  history  and  experience  of  all  States  before  them."  Essex  Result, 
II.  Cf.  Ibid.,  10.  They  further  say :  "The  voice  of  the  people  is  said  to  be  the 
voice  of  God.  No  man  will  be  so  hardy  and  presumptuous,  as  to  affirm  the  truth 
of  that  important  proposition  in  it's  fullest  extent."     Essex  Resul',  17. 

2  Essex  Result,  19.  Contemporary  mention  of  this  pamphlet  is  seen  in  the 
report,  of  23  pages,  of  the  action  of  the  town  of  Northampton,  May  22,  1780,  on 
the  constitution.  As  to  woman's  suffrage,  they  "refer  to  what  is  very  sensibly, 
as  well  as  genteelly  said  on  the  subject,  in  the  twenty-ninth  page  of  the  Essex 
result."  Mass.  Archives.  Reference  was  made  to  page  9  of  the  "  Result,"  "  as 
to  the  case  of  women,  of  whatever  age,  or  condition,  .  .  .  ."  A  draft  of  the 
report  is  in  Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

Richard  Fruthingham,  Jr.,  said  in  1S53  :  "  I  know  of  no  early  document  which 
is  so  remarkable  in  its  character  as  is  that  report — known  as  the  Essex  Result." 
Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  iSjj,  I.,  606. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1780 

§1.  Prelimiftary  Action 

The  rejection  of  the  constitution  of  1778  and  the  conse- 
quent doubt  of  the  General  Court  thereafter  as  to  "  what  are 
the  sentiments  of  the  major  part  of  the  good  People  of  this 
State,  as  to  the  expediency  of  now  proceeding  to  form  a  new 
Constitution  of  Government,"1  prompted  the  house2  to  resolve, 
on  February  19,  1779,3  that  all  who  were  qualified  to  vote 
for  representatives  should  be  called  to  vote  on  or  before  the 
last  Wednesday  of  May  1779,4  and  that  on  two  points:  first, 

1  Journal fthe  Convention,  .  .  .  i?JQ,  .  .  .  1780.  .  .  .  Boston,  1832,  p.  189. 

2  The  legislative  preliminaries  of  this  step  are  in  Journal  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, Jan.  6-May  3,  1779,  72,  129,  145,  147.     Cf  Ibid.,  159. 

3 Already  several  town  committees  had  met  at  Capt.  Israel  Hubbard's  "to  Con- 
sult on  Some  proper  method  of  Setting  foiward,  and  procureing  a  Constitution  of 
Civil  Goverment  for  ye  State  of  Massachusetts  Bay."'  Writing  from  Sunderland, 
Dec.  16,  1778,  they  asked  the  Northampton  committee  to  fix  a  time  and  place  for 
a  county  convention,  "  and  in  so  doing  we  trust  you  will  do  a  signal  publick  ser- 
vice." They  were  unanimously  "  of  ye  opinion  yl  ye  present  mode  of  civil  Gover- 
ment in  this  County,  &  State  (all  circumstances  considerd)  in  many  instances 
not  for  ye  peace  and  safety  of  this  state."  "  N.  B.  We  write  this  to  you  Gentle- 
men— because  we  understand  you  are  supposed  by  ye  County  to  stand  in  y'  pub- 
lick  place — yl  any  Town  or  towns  desireing  a  County  Convention  may  write  to 
you — if  not  we  earnestly  desire  you  would  do  it."  Hawlry  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft 
Collection. 

At  Chesterfield,  March  30,  1779,  some  town  committees  of  Western  Hampshire 
county  issued  a  call  for  a  county  convention  to  be  held  at  Northampton  April  20, 
and  asked  the  county  to  "  Bear  Testimony  against  a  Constitution  without  a  Name 
&  Legislation  without  Law."     Hazvley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

4  Journal  of  the  Convention,  189,  190.  On  the  first  Wednesday  in  May, 
according  to  the  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1285,  April  12,  1779. 

227J  227 


228  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [228 

whether  they  desired  that  a  new  constitution  should  then  be 
made ;  and,  second,  whether,  if  the  vote  on  the  first  point 
should  be  found  to  have  resulted  affirmatively,  they  would 
empower  their  representatives  to  call  a  convention  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  forming  such  a  constitution.1  The  council  on  the 
succeeding  day  concurred,2  and  the  first  Wednesday  in  June 
was  appointed  as  the  day  before  which  the  boards  of  select- 
men should  have  reported  to  the  secretary  of  the  common- 
wealth. The  returns3  then  submitted  showed  a  favorable 
response  to  both  propositions,  and  accordingly,  on  June  17, 
the  General  Court  resolved,4  as  two-thirds  of  the  towns5  had 
returned  a  majority  favorable  to  the  resolve  of  February  20, 
to  recommend  a  convention,  which  should  be  of  the  same 
size  as  the  General  Court,  and  which  should  meet  at  Cam- 
bridge on  September  1  and  begin  the  work  of  forming  a  new 
constitution.  It  was  further  resolved  that  the  selectmen  of 
the  towns  should  call  town-meetings,  to  be  held  at  least  four- 
teen days  before  September  1,  for  the  election  of  convention 
delegates  by  "every  Freeman,  Inhabitant  of  such  town,  who 
is  twenty  one  years  of  age,"  and  further  that  the  next  house 
of  representatives  be  instructed  to  establish  the  constitution 
when  ratified  by  two-thirds  of  the  free  male  inhabitants,  who 

'  Journal  of the  Convention,  .  .  .  1S9,  190. 

2  The  resolution  is  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1285,  April  12,  1779. 

3  Many  returns  were  made  on  the  single  sheets  on  which  had  been  printed  the 
Resolve  of  Feb.  20.     Some  original  returns  an*  in  Mass.  Archives,  160:  32  et  sea. 

*  House  bill  of  June  15.     journal  of  the  Convention,  5,  6. 

5  In  connection  with  the  units  of  voting,  attention  should  be  called  to  the  Re- 
solve of  April  29,  1779,  granting  to  unincorporated  plantations  paying  taxes  the 
privilege  of  joining  in  the  election  of  representatives  with  the  towns  in  which 
they  were  taxed.     Alass.  Archives,  213:  409. 

As  to  the  system  of  representation,  the  town  of  Petersham,  on  May  22,  asked 
the  General  Court  to  repeal  the  late  Act  of  Kt presentation,  as  favorable  to  the 
trading  class  and  harmful  to  the  interests  of  manufacturers  and  real  estate.  Mass. 
Archives,  1S5:  167,  168.     Cf.  Boston  Town  Records,  XX VI.,  <  3. 


229]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  229 

were  twenty-one  years  old,  and  were  acting  in  town-meet- 
ings called  for  the  purpose. 

The  response  to  this  action  of  the  General  Court  was  in 
most  cases  a  simple  return1  of  delegates ;  but  several,  includ- 
ing Boston,  further  insisted,  among  other  things,  upon  a 
strict  observance  of  the  legislative  resolve  providing  for  the 
submission  of  printed  copies  of  the  constitution  for  local  ac- 
tion, and  a  few  towns  took  the  opportunity  to  instruct  their 
delegates  upon  various  matters  of  equally  varied  import- 
ance.2 Some  towns  endeavored  to  establish  a  reputation  for 
political  intelligence.  Stoughton,  thus,  treated  the  problem 
of  a  biennial  council  of  censors,  dwelt  at  length  on  the 
matter  of  a  bill  of  rights,  on  the  source  of  power,  on  the 
triple  division  of  government;  and  proposed  a  series  of 
county  conventions,  a  meeting  of  conference  committees 
sent  by  these,  and  finally  a  full  convention  "  to  frame  out  of 
ye  above  materials  ye  best  Constitution  of  Government  in  ye 
World."3  Sandisfield  offered  an  abundance  of  detail4  in- 
cluding the  expression  of  a  demand  then  strong  and  to  be 
stronger,  that  there  should  be  a  registry  of  deeds  in  every  town 
and  more  generally  convenient  probate  facilities.  The  town 
of  Gorham  would  excel  Franklin  on  his  own  ground,  and 
proposed   not  only  a   legislature  of    a  single  chamber  but 

1  These  returns  and  the  returns  to  the  Resolve  of  February  20  are  in  Mass. 
Archives,  160 :  32-293. 

'lE.g.:  Lunenburg,  August  9,  1779.  Mass.  Archives,  160:  187.  Dudley, 
August  18,  1778.  Mass.  Archives,  160:  183.  Williamstown,  July  27,  1779. 
Mass.  Archives,  160 :  139.  The  last  town  included  in  its  suggestions  a  proposal 
for  the  repeated  submission  of  the  constitution  until  two-thirds  should  have  ap- 
proved. 

3  Mass.  Archives,  160:  266-277. 

i  Ibid.,  160 :  255-265.  The  report  included  the  suggestions  of  two  sessions  of 
the  Assembly,  in  May  and  October,  of  an  annual  term  for  Representatives, 
although  with  elections  in  April  and  September,  and  of  liberty  of  conscience  to 
all  protestants.  It  also  proposed  the  title  of  "  His  Honour  "  for  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor. 


230  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [230 

also  the  abolition  of  governor  and  council,  citing  for  their 
comfort  the  happiness  of  the  Romans  under  their  Senate  and 
of  the  Jews  under  their  Sanhedrim.  In  this  manner  and  in 
the  press1  the  sentiment  of  the  time  was  voiced  plainly  and 
with    sufficient   fulness,  so  that   when    September   came    the 

1  Thus  the  Boston  Gazette,  nos.  1298-1300,  July  12,  19,  26,  1779,  has  "An  Ad- 
dress to  the  Good  People  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  Bay,"  with  a  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Form  of  Government,  "  Calculated,  formed  and  collected,  by  one  of  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  honorable  House  of  Representatives  of  Massachusetts  State,  1778." 
The  address  includes :  "  Let  us  have  a  Constitution,  not  upon  party  views  or  preju- 
dice, nor  to  aggrandize  those  that  may  rule  among  us,  with  pomp,  honor,  and 
wealth;  but  a  Constitution  founded  in  the  honor,  interest,  safety  and  happiness  of 
this  State  in  general,"  no.  1298.  He  favors  a  bicameral  legislature,  annual  elec- 
tions, liberty  of  conscience  to  protestants,  entails,  and  graded  property  qualifica- 
tions for  electors.  The  Pres.,  vice-Pres.,  Council,  Representatives,  Continental 
Congress  delegates,  and  all  judicial  officers  were  in  his  plan  to  be  Protestants. 
"Trade,  commerce,  land,  personal  estate,  polls,  and  faculty,  bearing  a  proportion 
in  the  public  expenses  yearly,  to  be  stated  by  the  House  of  Representatives;  and 
a  Valuation  list  shall  be  taken  once  in  three  years  to  that  end  for  ever  hereafter," 
no.  1299. 

So  "A  Freeholder "  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  no  1306,  Sept.  6,  1779,  writes: 
"Self-love  is  the  main  spring  of  human  actions."  He  proposes  simplicity  in  the 
Constitution,  a  Bill  of  Rights  with  a  clear  definition  of  powers  and  with  elections 
so  frequent  that  "  the  people  shall  hold  the  staff  in  their  owm  hands."  \_Cf. 
"  Some  thoughts  on  Government :"  "  And  as  the  principles  of  government  mainly 
consist  in  setling  where  the  power  shall  rest,  and  how  it  shall  be  exercised,  and 
as  the  law  of  God  and  nature  hath  put  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the  people  so  it 
is  of  great  importance  that  they  keep  it  there."  Mass.  Spy,  no.  364,  April  23, 
1778.]  He  suggests  rotation  in  office,  freedom  of  conscience  to  all  Christians, 
the  abolition  of  compulsory  payments  for  religion,  and  the  freedom  of  civil  liberty 
from  ihe  limitations  of  religious  acts.  "Every  man  who  objects  to  an  article  so 
full  and  plain  as  this  is,  gives,  in  my  opinion,  the  public  reason  to  suspect  that  he 
is  not  in  heart  a  friend  to  the  rights  of  conscience." 

On  the  general  situation,  "  a  friend  to  the  community,"  while  urging  a  new 
constitution,  had  written  in  May  :  "The  people  of  this  State  were  once  universally 
disposed  to  obedience  of  law;  no  people  more  reverenced  the  laws  of  the  land; 
and  in  ancient  times  placed  greater  confidence  in  their  rulers.  The  late  revolu- 
tion has  brought  us  in  a  relax  state  of  government;  that  old  reverence  for  law  is 
almost  worn  out  ot  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  will  in  a  very  short  time  be 
eraced,  unless  a  new  form  of  government  be  assumed,  .  .  .  ."  Independent 
Chronicle,  no.  563,  May  20.  1779. 

Cf.  Stevens,  Facsimiles,  no.  2046. 


231]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHU SETTS  2  3  I 

delegates  were  adequately  instructed,  by  means  both   formal 
and  informal,  for  the  work  before  them.1 

§2.    Work  of  the  Convention 

On  the  day  appointed  by  law  the  delegates2  who  were  in- 
vested with  constituent  powers3  convened  at  Cambridge.4 
An  organization  was  promptly  effected,5  credentials  were 
produced  and  passed  upon,  a  committee  on  rules  was 
created,6  and  six  monitors  were  appointed  "  to  keep  order, 
and  to  return  the  House  as  there  may  be  occasion."7  The 
second  day  of  the  session  it  was  resolved,  "That  it  is  the 
opinion  of  this  Convention,  that  they  have  sufficient  authority 
from  the  People  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  to  proceed  to  the 
framing  a  new  Constitution  of  Government,  to  be  laid  before 
them  agreeably  to  their  instructions."8  On  the  day  thereafter 
the  delegates  began  their  work.     On  the  basis  of  a  committee 

1  And  cf.  Joseph  Hawley,  October  18,  1779,  to  Samuel  Adams:  "  Your  Power 
is  not  derived  from  The  Gen'l  Assembly  But  the  People"  Adams  Papers,  VI., 
Bancroft  Collection. 

2  The  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1306,  Sept.  6,  1779,  contains  an  incomplete  list  of 
delegates.  Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams.  IX.,  618.  An  incomplete  list  of  293 
delegates  is  given  in  Journal  of  the  Convention,  8-19.  E.  g.:  the  town  of 
Western  sent  a  delegate  with  no  formal  warrant,  simply  "hearing  of  the  pre- 
cept," and  holding  election.  Mass.  Archives,  160:  289.  Cf.  Smith,  History  of 
Pittsfield,  I.,  369. 

3  The  question  of  the  nature  and  legality  of  this  body,  and  the  question  of  its 
authority,  were  discussed  in  1853  by  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  who  aimed  to  show  that 
the  convention  of  i779-'So  was  in  such  respects  perfectly  similar  to  those  of 
1820  and  1S53.  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of /Sjj,  94-97.  Cf. 
Ibid.,  78,  115. 

4  Cf.  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  1853,  I.,  13. 

5  James  Bowdoin  was  chosen  President,  and  Samuel  Barrett,  Secretary,  your- 
nal of  the  Convention,  7. 

6  Consisting  of  Messrs.  Pickering,  Gorham,  Goodman,  Sullivan,  and  Dawes. 
Their  report,  as  amended,  comprised  ten  rules  of  procedure,  and  was  accepted 
Sept.  2.     Journal  of  the  Convention,  20,  21. 

''Ibid.,  19.  8Ibid.,  22. 


232  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [232 

report  they  determined  upon  the  choice  of  a  committee  of 
thirty-one,  four  at  large  and  twenty-seven  named  by  the 
county  delegations,1  for  the  preparation  of  a  declaration  of 
rights  and  a  constitution.  This  committee2  was  constituted 
on  September  4,  when  also  the  "  Convention  resumed  a  free 
conversation,  begun  yesterday,  on  the  general  principles  of  a 
Declaration  of  Rights,  and  a  Form  or  Constitution  of  Govern- 
ment."3 Those  whom  Winthrop  has  called  the  "  greatest 
minds  of  the  Commonwealth,"1  were  now  beginning  "  to  repair 
the  failure  "4  of  1778  ;  and  surely  never  before  was  there  a 
happier  opportunity  for  a  man  "  to  display  his  knowledge  of 
the  principles  of  government,  and  of  men  and  things.  Num- 
bers of  members  did  honour  to  themselves  and  their  country, 
on  that  occasion  ;  and,"  further  wrote  the  "  Laco  "  of  the  time, 
"  our  present  happy  Constitution,  the  wonder  of  the  world, 

1  Five  counties  had  three  members  each  on  this  committee;  four  counties,  two 
each;  three  counties,  one  each;  Dukes  and  Nantucket  Counties  together  had  one 
member.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  24.  As  neither  Dukes  nor  Nantucket  was 
represented  in  the  Convention,  neither  had  a  member  on  this  committee,  as 
actually  constituted. 

In  the  Harvard  College  Library  [6347.12]  is  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee on  the  Constitution,  in  which  volume  is  bound  a  letter  of  Samuel  Barrett,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Convention,  to  Rev.  Edwd.  Wigglesvvorth,  dated  Nov.  5,  1779,  giving 
an  "  Exact  List"  of  the  large  committee,  and  naming  Bowdoin,  John  Adams,  and 
Samuel  Adams  as  the  sub-committee.  But  he  gives  Samuel  Small  as  of  Lincoln 
Co.,  and  Benj.  Brainard  as  of  Cumberland  Co.,  which  was  the  reverse  of  the  min- 
utes {cf  Journal  of  the  Convention,  29),  and  the  reverse  of  their  residences.  As 
to  Dukes  and  Nantucket,  Barrett  says:  "  from  their  peculiar  Situation  in  respect 
of  the  Enemy,  not  being  represented  in  the  Convention,  had  no  Member  on  the 
committee." 

In  the  choice  of  committeemen  at  large,  with  237  voting  and  119  votes  needed 
to  elect,  Samuel  Adams  received  209,  Caleb  Strong  203,  and  John  Pickering  156. 
In  the  afternoon,  with  198  voting,  William  Cushing  received  135  votes  and  was 
added  to  the  committee.     Journal  of  the  Convention,  .  .  .  30. 

Cf  Thecphilus  Parsons,  Memoir  of  Tlieophilus  Parsons,  55,  56,  454. 

2  The  thirty  members  are  given  in  Journal  of  the  Convention,  2S-30. 

3  Ibid.,  27. 

4  R.  C.  Winthrop,  Life  and  Services  ofjas.  Bowdoin,  Boston,  1876,  p.  21. 


2  3  3 1  G  °  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CH  USE  TTS  233 

exhibits  the  clearest  proof  of  wisdom  and  knowledge."1  A 
Massachusetts  man,  already  quoted,  spoke  of  this  body  as 
containing  "  as  great  a  number  of  men  of  learning,  talent  and 
patriotism  as  had  ever  been  convened  here  at  any  earlier 
period;"2  but  the  Adams  whom  Paul  Wentworth  had  men- 
tioned as  the  "  Legislator  much  Confided  in,"3  later  re- 
ferred to  the  convention  as  a  body  containing  "  such  chaos 
of  absurd  sentiments  concerning  government"  that  he  "  was 
obliged  daily,  before  that  great  assembly,  and  afterwards  in 
the  Grand  Committee,  to  propose  plans,  and  advocate  doc- 
trines, which  were  extremely  unpopular  with  the  greater 
number."4  The  one  who  recognized  in  patience  the  three 
virtues  of  the  politician5  had  written  more  than  four  years 
before,  on  the  receipt  by  the  Continental  Congress  of  the 
letter6  of  the  Massachusetts  Provincial  Congress  relative  to 
forms  of  government:"  "This  subject  had  engaged  much  of 
my  attention  before  I  left  Massachusetts,  and  had  been  fre- 
quently the  subject  of  conversation  between  me  and  many  of 
my  friends, — Dr.  Winthrop,  Dr.  Cooper,  Colonel  Otis,  the 
two  Warrens,  Major  Hawley,  and  others,  besides  my  col- 
leagues in  Congress, — and  lay  with  great  weight  upon  my 
mind,  as  the  most  difficult  and  dangerous  business  that  we 

1  The  Writings  of  Laco  [Stephen  Higginson],  Boston,  1789,  13. 

2  R.  C.  Winthrop,  quoted  in  Bullock,  Centennial  of  the  Massachusetts  Constitu- 
tion, Worcester,  188 1,  16. 

3  Minutes  on  Parties  in  America;   Stevens,  Facsimiles,  no.  487. 

4  John  Adams  to  Benj.  Rush,  Quincy,  April  12,  1809.  Works  of  John  Adams, 
IX.,  618.  Illustrating  his  position,  he  further  wrote:  "Lieutenant-Governor 
Cushing  was  avowedly  for  a  single  assembly,  like  Pennsylvania.  Samuel  Adams 
was  of  the  same  mind.  Mr.  Hancock  kept  aloof,  in  order  to  be  governor.  In 
short,  I  had  at  first  no  support  but  from  the  Essex  junto.  ..."  A  different 
view  appears  in  Wells  Papers,  S.  Adams  and  the  American  Revolution,  III.,  ch. 
II,  Bancroft  Collection. 

5  Cf.  Works  of  John  Adams,  IX.,  394. 
6 Dated  May  16,  1775. 


234  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [234 

had  to  do  ;  (for  from  the  beginning,  I  always  expected  we 
should  have  more  difficulty  and  danger,  in  our  attempt  to 
govern  ourselves,  and  in  our  negotiations  and  connections  with 
foreign  powers,  than  from  all  the  fleets  and  armies  of  Great 
Britain)."1  The  patience,  the  ability,  and  the  influence  of 
Adams  were  now  to  show  their  effect ;  with  his  name  is  the 
important  report  of  October  28  most  closely  associated.2 

The  constitutional  convention  after  completing  its  prelimi- 
nary business,  passing  certain  general  resolutions,3  and  tak- 
ing steps  toward  securing  a  larger  attendance,4  asked  the 
committee  on  the  constitution  to  fix  soon  the  time  and  place 
of  its  meeting,5  and  then  adjourned  to  meet  October  28. 
During    the    recess6    of    the   convention    the    committee    of 

1  Autobiography  under  date  of  June  2,  1775,  Works  of  John  Adams,  III.,  13. 

2  Cf  Ibid.,  IV.,  213-267. 

3  On  September  3,  "  Resolved,  unanimously,  That  the  Government,  to  be  framed 
by  this  Convention,  shall  be  a  free  Republic."  "  Resolved,  That  it  is  of  the 
Essence  of  a  free  Republic,  that  the  People  be  governed  by  fixed  Laws  OF 
their  own  Making."     Journal  of  the  Convention,  24. 

4  The  Convention,  on  Sept.  4,  asked  the  General  Court  to  adjourn  the  Superior 
Courts  of  Worcester  and  Hampshire  Cos.,  to  avoid  conflicts  in  the  appointments 
of  members.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  31.  The  Council,  on  Sept.  9,  resolved, 
and  the  House  concurred  the  same  day,  to  adjourn  from  the  appointed  dates  the 
Superior  Courts  of  Worcester,  Hampshire,  Middlesex,  Essex,  and  Suffolk  Counties, 
as  some  justices  were  on  the  committee  on  the  constitution.  The  original  resolve, 
sent  down  from  the  council,  is  in  Mass.  Archives,  223:  432-434.  The  bill  was 
published  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  nos.  1307,  1308,  1309,  Sept.  13,  20,  27,  1779. 
Cf  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

To  secure  a  more  complete  representation  in  the  Convention  when  it  should 
reassemble  on  October  28,  a  recommendation  to  the  selectmen  of  all  towns  was 
adopted  on  Sept.  7,  that  they  should  have  delegates  chosen,  if  it  had  not  already 
been  done. 

5  The  appointment  was  made  for  Sept.  13  at  the  New  Court  House. 

6  That  part  of  the  recess  between  Sept.  7  and  Oct.  I,  is  covered  by  an  extant  roll 
of  attendance  of  Secretary  Barrett  and  the  30  members.  In  this  pay  roll  24  days' 
time  is  given  to  Rev.  Sam'l  West,  Jas.  Harris,  and  Caleb  Strong;  23  days'  time 
to  two  members;  and  "no  service"  is  entered  against  11  out  of  the  30,  viz.,  Jas. 


235]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  235 

thirty1  delegated  the  actual  constructive  work  of  a  bill 
of  rights  to  John  Adams,2  and  of  a  constitution  to  James 
Bowdoin,  Samuel  Adams,3  and  John  Adams,  a  frame  by 
the  last  of  whom  was,  after  modification  by  the  two  com- 
mittees, reported  to  the  convention   with  the  bill  of  rights.4 

Bowdoin,  John  Lovell,  Jas.  Sullivan,  Natb'l  Gorham,  Jed.  Foster,  John  Cotton, 
David  Sewall,  Enoch  Hallett,  Sam'l  Small,  Benj.  Brainard,  and  Wm.  Cushing. 
Mass.  Archives,  170:  413.  Since  reading  the  manuscript  of  the  foregoing  I  have 
found  in  the  Annals  of  Metidon,  385,  386,  a  similar  roll,  taken  from  the  original 
cited. 

On  October  25,  1779,  Caleb  Strong  wrote  to  Joseph  Hawley:  "I  was  so  fortu- 
nate as  to  arrive  here  just  before  the  Comittee  entered  on  Business  since  which 
we  have  applied  with  Industry  &  I  believe  we  shall  find  our  Time  quite  short 
enough."     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

1  On  p.  36  of  a  copy  in  the  Lenox  Library  of  Journal  of  the  Convention,  .  .  . 
Boston,  1832,  is  written,  evidently  by  Geo.  Bancroft:  "The  committee  of  30  for 
framing  the  constitution  met  in  Boston  &  chose  a  sub-committee  composed  of 
J.  Adams,  Bowdoin,  &  S.  Adams.  What  is  the  authority  for  this  statement?" 
See  p.  232,  note  1. 

2  Article  3  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  was  not  attributed  to  John  Adams.  Cf.  Works 
of  John  Adams,  IV.,  215,  216. 

3  W.  V.  Wells  quotes  a  letter  to  himself  from  Caleb  Strong,  Northampton,  May 
31,  1819 :  "  Mr.  Adams  was  very  assiduous  in  attending  to  the  business,  &  accord- 
ing to  the  representation  which  you  mention  as  given  by  doctor  Eliot  was  eminently 
useful  from  his  knowledge  and  experience.  Besides  gov.  [Samuel]  Adams  there 
were  in  the  committee  gov.  Bowdoin  the  chairman,  Mr.  Adams,  late  President  of 
the  United  States,  the  late  Chief  Justice  Will™  Cushing,  Judge  Paine,  Mr.  John 
Pickering  of  Salem,  the  late  Chief  Justice  Parsons,  and  several  other  of  the  most 
able  men  in  the  State.  These  generally  agreed  in  the  principles  of  the  Constitu- 
tion; but  they  were  often  opposed  by  divers  members  of  the  committee  who 
wished  for  what  was  termed  a  more  popular  government."  Wells  also  states  that 
Judge  Robbins,  of  Milton,  a  member  of  the  convention,  informed  him  that  Samuel 
Adams  made  many  animated  speeches  of  two  hours  in  length.  Wells  Papers, 
Samziel  Adams  and  the  American  Revolution,  III.,  chap.  II,  Bancroft  Collec- 
tion. 

4  This  report  was  not  easily  to  be  found  in  1832.  Cf  Works  of  John  Adams, 
IV.,  216.      Cf  Journal  of  the  Convention,  191. 

The  Report  of  a  Constitutio?i  ...  a  pamphlet  of  50  pages  was  published  in 
1779  by  Benj.  Edes  and  Sons,  Boston.     Copies  are  in  the  Library  of  Harvard 


236  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [236 

With  a  tentative  frame  of  government  before  it  as  a  basis  of 
discussion  the  convention,  on  October  28,  resumed  its  work.1 
The  first  active  session  of  the  convention,  which  lasted  a  fort- 
night, resulted  in  the  prompt  acceptance  of  seventeen  articles 
in  the  bill  of  rights,  and  in  the  adoption,  after  discussion  and 
alteration,2  of  ten  others,  including  the  troublesome  third 
article.  Final  action  on  the  remaining  articles  was  post- 
poned, and  an  effort  was  made  to  consider  the  body  of 
the  constitution.  Besides  the  matter  of  judicial  tenures, 
the  only  important  point  which  in  these  weeks,  as  indeed 
also  later,  was  the  subject  of  much  controversy  was  the 
article  bearing  on  matters  of  religion,  the  third  article  of  the 
bill  of  rights.  Of  this  the  first  two  propositions  were  ac- 
cepted on  October  30;  those  concerning  the  support  of  re- 
ligious instruction  and  worship  were  "  largely  debated  "  and 
their  final  consideration  postponed.  Attention  was  given  to 
the  matter  on  the  three  succeeding  days,  on  the  last  of  which 
it  was  referred,  together  with  all  related  propositions,  to  a 
special  committee  of  seven  ;3  by  them,  three  days  later,  was 

College.  In  the  Mass.  Archives  is  a  copy  on  large  paper  with  notes  in  the  mar- 
gin by  Stephen  Hall,  Tertius,  of  Medford. 

The  text  of  the  report  has  been  printed  in  "Journal  of  the  Convention,  pp.  191 
et  sea. 

As  to  the  authorship  of  this  report,  cf.  Memoirs  oj  Theophihts  Parsons,  55,  56, 

454- 

Also,  e.g.,  John  Adams  to  Mercy  Warren,  July  28,  1807:  "I  made  the  Consti- 
tution for  Massachusetts  which  finally  made  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 
5  Collections  Mass.  Hist.  Society,  IV.,  377.  Cf.  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the 
Convention  of  /8jj,  I.,  820. 

Cf.  John  Adams,  August  8,  1807,  to  Mrs.  Mercy  Warren.  5  Collections  of  the 
Mass.  Historical  Society,  IV.,  432. 

1  On  Oct.  28,  19  new  members  qualified.     Journal  of  the  Convention,  34,  35. 

'■'The  alterations  made  by  the  Convention  in  the  report  of  the  committee  were 
put  on  a  printed  copy  of  that  report.  Only  the  final  form  of  such  changes 
appears  in  the  records.     Cf.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  36. 

3  Rev.  Alden,  Th.  Parsons,  S.  Adams,  Danielson,  Paine,  Rev.  Sanford,  and  C, 
Strong.     Journal  of  the  Convention,  40.     Further  amendments  were  referred  to 


237]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  2%7 

reported  a  new  draft  of  the  whole  of  article  3.  And  on 
November  10  the  convention  formally  adopted  the  report  of 
the  special  committee,  after  having  made  slight  changes 
therein  and  after  having  defeated  a  motion  to  expunge  the 
whole  article.1 

Turning  to  the  frame  of  government,  a  motion  was  enter- 
tained to  expunge  the  first  paragraph  of  the  first  section  and 
to  insert:  "The  department  of  legislation  shall  be  formed  by- 
three  branches,  a  Governor,  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, each  of  which  shall  have  a  negative  on  the 
other."2  The  convention,  however,  declined  at  this  time  to 
commit  itself  to  such  a  plan,  although  it  determined  to  con- 
sider first  those  parts  of  the  "frame"  pertaining  to  the  legis- 
lature. But  already  the  convention  had  so  dwindled  that  at 
times  less  than  one-third  of  the  members  were  present.3 
The  urgency  of  the  situation,  the  expediency  of  enabling 
the  public  thoroughly  to  understand  the  proposed  con- 
stitution, and  the  advisability  of  suspending  proceedings 
until  the  cessation,  in  January,  of  the  work  of  the  General 
Assembly  and   of  the  superior  courts,   combined   to  bring 

them  on  November  5,  Journal  of  the  Convention,  41,42.  Mr.  Sanford  alone  of 
the  committee  disagreed  with  its  report.  Wells  Papers,  S.  Adams  and  the 
American  Revolution,  III.,  ch.  II,  Bancroft  Collection. 

1  Of  this,  Joseph  Hawley  wrote  that  it  was  bad  and  obscure,  and  that  future 
laws  on  religion,  "  if  made  conformable  to  the  article  itself,  will  afford  plenty  of 
that  glorious  uncertainty,  which  is  the  source  of  the  emoluments  of  the  men  of 
my  profession."     June  5,  1780.     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  November  9;  Journal  of  the  Convention,  44.  Cf.  Diary  of  Ezra  Stiles, 
April  29,  1776,  after  a  conversation  with  Francis  Dana:  "  Mr.  Gadsden  is  sent 
home  to  assist  in  settling  Govt.  Mr.  Hooper  a  delegate  from  North  Carolina 
sent  home  to  assist  in  modelling  the  Govt  there  and  took  a  plan  from  Mr.  Samuel 
Adams,  vizt :  three  branches  of  legislature  all  elective — the  deputies  by  the 
Counties — the  Council  and  the  Governor  by  the  people  at  large."  Stiles  Papers, 
519,  Bancroft  Collection. 

3  E.  g.:  November  8,  a.  m.;  93  present,  207  absent.  Journal  of  the  Conven- 
tion, 42. 


238  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [238 

about  an  adjournment  on  November  1 1.1  It  was  voted  that 
the  next  meeting  should  be  at  Boston  on  the  first  Wednes- 
day in  January.  1780;  and  the  president2  was  directed  to 
make  use  of  the  press  and  publicly  "  to  enjoin  upon  its  mem- 
bers, from  its  necessity  and  importance,  A  CONSTANT  AND 
GENERAL  ATTENDANCE  accordingly."3 

The  convention  began  its  next  session  on  the  day  ap- 
pointed, but  as  travelling  was  "excessive  bad,"  few  mem- 
bers appeared,  and  during  a  period  of  more  than  three 
weeks  which  followed  there  were  repeated  adjournments4 
and  efforts  to  secure  a  larger  attendance.5  The  outlook 
finally  improving  after  this  "spell"  of  weather,6  a  return  of 

1  This  session  had,  on  Nov.  9,  defeated  a  motion  to  put  "  Oceana  "  in  place  of 
"  Massachusetts,"  in  the  first  paragraph  of  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution. 
Journal  of  the  Convention,  43.  Cf.  Dwight,  Harrington,  in  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  II.,  1.  Caleb  Strong,  Boston,  October  25,  1779,  to  Joseph  Hawley: 
"  I  had  forgot  to  mention  that  some  of  the  Comtee  are  dissatisfied  so  much  with 
the  Name  of  Massachusetts  Bay  that  they  would  gladly  substitute  in  its  Place 
Oceana  but  1  think  we  must  compound  the  Matter  with  establishing  Massachu- 
setts leaving  out  the  Word  Bay."     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  The  call  issued  on  Nov.  20  by  Pres.  Bowdoin  for  a  full  attendance  on  Jan.  5, 
1780,  is  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1318,  Nov.  29,  1779,  and  the  AJass.  Spy,  no. 
450,  Dec.  16,  1779. 

3  Journal  of  III e  Convention,  p.  49. 

*  January  13,  17S0,  [S.  Adams  to  J.  Adams]  :  "You  will  see  by  the  inclosed 
Paper  that  our  convention  is  adjourned.  The  Roads  thro'  the  Country  are  so 
blocked  up  by  incessant  &  heavy  Snows,  that  it  has  been  impracticable  for  the 
Members  to  attend.  It  is  proposed  to  keep  it  alive  by  Short  Adjournments  till  a 
sufficient  Number  shall  arrive  to  proceed  to  Business.  Those  among  us  who  can 
rember  [sic]  the  year  1727  say  there  has  not  been  so  much  Snow  on  the  Ground 
since  that  I  ime."     Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection. 

5  Thus,  on  January  7,  notices  were  sent  to  the  newspapers,  including  even  those 
of  Piovidence,  Worcester,  Salem,  and  Hartford.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  52. 
It  was  at  this  period,  on  January  5,  17S0,  that  the  Braintree  selectmen  were 
notified  to  hold  an  election  to  fill  the  seat  of  John  Adams  "who  has  sailed  for 
Europe;  .  .  .  ."  Ibid.,  51.  Cf  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  t lie  Convention  of 
j8jj,  I.,  46,  78,  82,  91,  98,  i  14.      Cf.  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1S20,  54. 

fi"  For  twenty  years  past  the  traveling  has  not  been  known  to  be  worse  than  at 
present."     Mass.  Spy,  no.  453  (half  sheet),  January  6,  1780.     Cf  Ibid.,  no.  457, 


2  3  9  ]  G  O  VERNMENT  IN  MA  SSA  CHUSE  ITS  239 

the  towns  was  taken  on  January  17,  by  which  it  appeared 
that  forty-seven  towns1  were  represented.  It  was  then  de- 
termined, by  a  vote  of  42  out  of  a  total  of  60,  to  proceed 
again  to  business.  A  beginning  was  made  by  the  devout 
refusal  to  strike  out  the  committee's  characterization  of  their 
ancestors  as  "  wise  and  pious,"2  by  the  adoption  of  chapter 
VII.  as  reported,3  and  by  the  acceptance  of  a  detailed  pro- 
gram of  business.4  Thenceforward  the  work  was  carried  on 
with  more  system  and  better  effect,  although  rapid  progress 
was  still  hindered  by  the  postponement  of  vital  points  in  the 
hope  of  an  attendance  more  truly  representative  of  all  parts 
of  the  commonwealth. 

The  work  of  Adams,  though  he  was  absent,  was  early  en- 
dorsed by  the  final  adoption  of  the  bicameral  legislative  sys- 
tem ;  5  a  long  list  of  offices  the  incumbents  of  which  should 

February  3,  17S0,  and  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1324,  January  10,  1780,  On  February 
23,  1780,  the  issue  of  the  Mass.  Spy  was  omitted,  owing  to  the  small  sales  and 
the  increased  expenses  due  to  bad  roads.  Many  accounts  refer  to  the  unusual 
severity  of  the  winter. 

1  Seven  counties  were  not  represented.  At  this  time  there  were  represented 
fourteen  towns  of  Middlesex,  ten  of  Suffolk,  nine  of  Essex,  five  of  Hampshire, 
four  each  of  Worcester  and  Bristol,  and  one  of  Berkshire  County,  journal  of 
the  Convention,  55-57. 

2  Chap.  VI.,  Sec.  1,  Art.  I. 

3  Chap.  VII.,  as  reported,  became  simply  Chap.  VI.,  Art.  9,  of  the  constitution 
as  adopted,  providing  that  all  officers  previously  commissioned  should  hold  office 
until  their  successors  should  be  appointed,  and  that  all  officers  should  continue 
to  act  until  the  Ceneial  Court  and  the  new  officials  under  the  constitution  as- 
sumed power.     January  27,  17S0,  Journal  of  the  Convention,  58. 

4  January  28,  17S0;    Ibid.,  59,  60. 

5  February  1,  1780;  Chap.  II.,  Sec.  1,  Art.  I.,  parag.  I;  the  final  form  was 
taken  as  a  substitute  for  the  committee  report.  Ibid.,  68.  But  a  later  change 
was  made,  as  the  texts  of  the  October,  1779,  report,  and  of  the  adopted  constitu- 
tion, are  in  this  paragraph  identical.  W.  V.  Wells  quotes  a  letter  to  himself 
from  Caleb  Strong,  Northampton,  May  31,  1819,  and  cites  a  letter  of  S.  Adams 
to  J.  Adams,  Nov.  20,  1790,  to  support  his  claim  that  Samuel  Adams  was  not 
opposed  to  a  bicameral  legislature.  Wells  Papers,  Samuel  Adams  and  the 
American  Revolution,  vol.  III.,  chap.  II,  Bancroft  Collection. 


240  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [24O 

be  disqualified  for  legislative  service  was  approved ;  '  the 
characteristic  spirit  of  the  time  and  region  was  exemplified 
by  the  imposition  upon  practically  all  office-holders  of  a 
stringent  test  of  allegiance  in  the  oath  of  office;2  and  a  mass 
of  detail  was  passed  under  view.  With  eighty-four  present,3 
a  motion  to  adjourn  to  a  distant  day  was  defeated ;  and  with 
fifty-eight  present4  only  thirty-three5  helped  to  answer 
affirmatively  the  question,  "  whether  the  Convention  will  now 
proceed  in  the  business  of  framing  a  Constitution  of  Govern- 
ment, and  continue  in  the  same  until  completed ;...." 

The  committee's  outline  of  work,  somewhat  modified  from 
time  to  time,  was  resumed,6  and  the  routine  of  report,  refer- 
ence, and  adoption  was  pushed  forward  toward  a  completion 
of  the  task.  The  clerical  spirit  of  1778  failed  in  its  efforts  for 
the  substitution  of  "  Protestant  "  for  "  Christian  ;"7  further  at- 
tention was  given  to  the  oaths  of  office  ;8  and  the  matter  of  rep- 
resentation was  given  thorough  consideration.     Action  was 

1  Cf.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  81-83,  93,  138,  139. 
a  Cf.  Ibid.,  88,  89. 

3  From  62  towns;    February  4,  1 780.     Ibid.,  80. 
♦February  9,  1780;   Ibid.,  94. 

5  Joseph  Hawley,  in  his  Criticism  on  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  June 
5,  1780,  refers  to  the  past  winter  "when  More  than  two  thirds  of  your  Body  Not 
by  any  laches  or  default  cf  their  own  but  Merely  by  the  Act  of  God  were  pre- 
vented attending  ye  Convention  ....  I  say  I  do  not  sec  with  what  Justice  such 
a  part  could  be  denominated  the  Convention.  .  .  .  The  full  Convention  which 
they  adjourned  last  fall  from  Cambridge  to  Boston  had  Never  dismissed  or  passed 
upon  any  More  of  the  Report  of  their  Comtee  than  the  Articles  containd  in  the 

Declaration   of   Rights, they  cannot  by  any  reasonable  construction 

be  denominated  or  taken  to  have  been  the  Convention  unless  by  great  liberality 

they  should  be  considered  su:h  Merely  for  the  purpose  of  adjourning 

to  prevent  a  dissolution,  .  .  .  ."     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

6 February  10,  1780;   Ibid.,  94. 

7  February  10,  1780.  Journal  of  the  Convention,  97.  On  February  22  a 
motion  to  insert  "Protestant"  immediately  after  "Christian"  in  chap.  3,  art.  8, 
sec.  3,  was  defeated;   there  was  an  affirmative  vote  of  26  out  of   60.     Ibid.,  132. 

8  Cf  Ibid.,  109-111. 


2 4 1  ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  2 4 1 

taken  relative  to  a  future  alteration  of  the  constitution;1  and 
provision  was  made  for  the  necessary  processes  contingent 
upon  the  popular  ratification  of  the  forthcoming  document.2 
An  edition  of  1800  copies  of  the  constitution3  was  or- 
dered,4 and  arrangements  were  made  for  their  speedy  distri- 
bution5 to  the  proper  town  officials.     After  an  appearance  of 

'It  was  not  until  February  23,  1780,  that  a  committee  was  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  expediency  of  inserting  a  clause  "  making  provision  for  the  future  re- 
vision of  the  same  by  the  People  of  this  Commonwealth."  Dr.  Jarvis,  Mr. 
Adams,  and  Mr.  Spooner  composed  the  committee.  Journal  of  the  Convention, 
J34>  '35'  Their  report  was  made  March  1,  recommending  that  another  con- 
vention be  held  after  the  lapse  of  twenty  years.  It  was  at  once  considered;  a 
motion  to  fix  the  year  1800  as  the  year  when  there  should  be  an  opportunity  for 
revision  was  defeated;  and  a  motion  was  carried  to  designate  for  that  purpose 
the  year  1795.  Ibid.,  156,  157.  On  March  2  a  motion  to  substitute  1790  for 
1795  was  defeated.  Ibid.,  162.  On  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  the  report 
was  again  considered  and  accepted.     Ibid.,  162. 

2  The  document  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  inhabitants  of  each  town  and  planta- 
tion; in  case  two-thirds  of  the  voters  should  approve,  it  was  recommended  that  the 
people  of  the  towns  and  plantations  "  empower  their  Delegates,  at  the  next  Session 
of  this  Convention,  to  agree  upon  a  time  when  this  Form  of  Government  shall 
take  place,  without  returning  the  same  agaii  to  the  people:  .  .  .  ."  Journal 
of  the  Convention,  169. 

3  In  the  Library  of  Harvard  College  is  a  copy  of  the  Constitution  of  1780,  as 
agreed  on  by  the  Convention,  published  by  Benj.  Edes  and  Sons,  pp.  43,  but  with 
the  additional  line  on  the  title  page:  "[Revised  and  Corrected.]" — In  the 
Library  of  Harvard  College  is  also  a  copy  of  the  Constitution  of  1780,  with  the 
convention  resolutions  of  March  2,  1780,  published  by  Benj.  Edes  and  Sons,  pp.  53. 
The  text  of  the  constitution  is  reprinted  in  Journal  of  the  Convention,  222-249. 

*  A  report  including  this  was  accepted,  February  29.  Journal  of  the  Conve?i- 
tion,  155.     A  similar  vote  was  passed,  March  1,  Ibid.,  158. 

5 Messrs.  Barrett,  Wendell,  and  Gray  were  on  March  1  appointed  "to  employ 
three  expresses,"  and  "  to  distribute  the  books  to  the  several  towns  and  planta- 
tions, in  such  numbers  to  each  as  they  may  think  proper."  Messrs.  Bowdoin 
and  Adams  were  immediately  added  to  this  committee.  Journal  of  the  Conven- 
tion, 158.  In  Mass.  Archives,  231  :  456A  is  a  bill  of  Thos.  Edes  against  the 
convention,  paid  May  3,  17S0,  for  a  horse,  170  miles,  ^255;  expenses,  ^,252; 
fourteen  da)S  service  distributing  constitution  in  Worcester,  Hampshire,  and 
Berkshire  counties,  ^168;  total,  ^675.  In  Mass.  Archives,  231  :  4560  are  two 
bills,  one  of  which,  of  L.  G.  Wallis,  is  for  nine   days  service  at  "  40  Dollars  p 


242  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [242 

considerable  friction,1  it  was  determined  that  the  adjourn- 
ment should  be  until  the  first  Wednesday  in  June ;  and  an 
address2  was  agreed  upon  for  submission  to  the  people  with 
the  constitution. 

In  the  address  emphasis  was  put  upon  the  need  of  con- 
cession,3 and  upon  the  difficulty  of  the  task,  while  the  authors 
frankly  continued,  "We  may  not  expect  to  agree  in  a  perfect 
System  of  Government:  This  is  not  the  Lot  of  Mankind."4 
The  address  appeared  thus  as  an  apology,  and  furthermore 
as  an  argument  and  as  an  appeal.  So  it  was  asked  whether 
it  would  not  "  be  prudent  for  Individuals  to  cast  out  of  the 
Scale  smaller  considerations,  and  fall  in  with  an  evident  Ma- 
jority, unless  in  Matters  in  which  their  Consciences  shall  con- 
strain them  to  determine  otherwise."  Government,  and  a 
strong  government,  was  essential,  for  it  was  "  probable,  that 
for  the    want  of  Energy,    it   would  speedily  lose    even  the 

Day."  On  April  7  the  house  and  council  voted  ,£900  in  response  to  the 
memorial  of  Secretary  Barrett,  to  distribute  the  "doings  of  the  Convention  "  to 
the  several  towns.     Mass.  Archives,  227  :   74. 

1  Motions  to  adjourn  to  the  first  Wednesday  in  September,  the  second  Wednes- 
day in  August,  the  second  Wednesday  in  July,  and  the  fourth  Wednesday  in  June, 
were  successively  defeated.     Journal  of  the  Convention,  152,  163. 

2  On  March  I  the  motion  was  carried  "  that  the  same  number  of  copies  of  the 
Address  be  printed,  as  of  the  Form  of  Government,  and  accompany  the  same, 
and  be  signed  by  the  President."  Journal  of  the  Convention,  159.  The  Address 
and  Constitution  were  printed  in  Almon's  Remembrancer,  1 780,  II.,  198-222. 
The  Address  was  published  by  White  and  Adams,  Eoston,  1780,  pp.  18;  a  copy 
is  in  the  Mass.  Archives,  and  also  in  the  Library  of  Harvard  College.  The  text 
is  reprinted  in  Journal  of  the  Convention,  216-221. 

The  committee  on  the  address  was  appointed,  February  22,  and  consisted  of 
Messrs.  Sullivan,  Adams,  Lowell,  West,  and  Gray.  Journal  of  the  Convention, 
130.  As  to  the  authorship  of  the  address,  cf.  T.  C.  Amory,  New  England  His- 
toric Genealogical  Society.  Proceedings  commemot  alive  of  the  organization  of  the 
government  of  Massachusetts,  25.  Wells,  Life  of  Samuel  Aaams,  III.,  80-97. 
Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1820,  435. 

3  Also,  cf.  A  Sermon  preached  .  .  .   October  23,  1780.     By  Samuel  Cooper,  28. 
*  Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  21 7 ;   this  was  quoted  in  an  apologetic  manner  in 

the  Address  of  the  Convention  of  1853.      'J  he  Constitutional  Propositions,  p.  44. 


243]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  243 

Appearance  of  Government,  and  sink  into  Anarchy."  But  to 
avoid  tyranny  a  duly  proportioned  weight  should  be  given 
to  each  power  of  government,  and  to  "  do  this  accurately 
requires  the  highest  Skill  in  political  Architecture."  To 
convince  the  people  of  the  wisdom  of  their  work  suggestive 
explanations  were  offered  upon  the  more  salient  points.  In 
the  endeavor  "to  assist  your  Judgments"  they  flattered 
themselves  that  they  had  "  sufficiently  guarded  the  rights  of 
Conscience  from  every  possible  infringement." 

The  third  article  of  the  declaration  of  rights,  they  con- 
tinued, "  underwent  long  debates,  and  took  Time  in  propor- 
tion to  its  importance ;  and  we  feel  ourselves  peculiarly 
happy  in  being  able  to  inform  you,  that,  though  the  debates 
were  managed  by  persons  of  various  denominations,  it  was 
finally  agreed  upon  with  much  more  Unanimity  than  usually 
takes  place  in  disquisitions  of  this  Nature."1  They  con- 
siderately maintained  that  it  would  be  an  affront  to  the 
people  of  the  commonweaUh  to  labor  to  convince  them 
"that  the  Public  Worship  of  God"  had  "a  tendency  to 
preserve  a  People  from  forsaking  Civilization,  and  falling  into 
a  state  of  Savage  barbarity."  They  subsequently  stated  that 
they  "  did  not  conceive  themselves  to  be  vested  with  Power 
to  set  up  one  Denomination  of  Christians  above  another;  for 
Religion  must  at  all  Times  be  a  matter  between  God  and  in- 
dividuals:"2 but  they  found  themselves  obliged  to  form 
stringent  oaths  of  office.  Various  matters  were  merely 
mentioned,  as  if  mention  by  the  convention  was  amply  ade- 
quate to  secure  the  contented  acquiescence  of  the  voter. 
Thus  they  alluded,  by  way  of  more  formal  sanction,  to  the 
judicial  tenures,  to  the  check  of  the  council  on  the  executive, 
to  the  limited  continuance  of  existing  laws  and  officers,  to 
the  powers  of  revision,  and  to  the  legislative  process.     Their 

1  Journal  of  the  Convention,  218;    Cf.  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1820,  430. 

2  Ibid.,  220. 


244  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [244 

constituents  were  told  that  the  governor  was  "  emphatically 
the  representative  of  the  whole  people,"1  and  that  the  house 
of  representatives  was  "  intended  as  the  Representative  of 
the  Persons,  and  the  Senate  of  the  property  of  the  Common- 
wealth."2 

Allegiance  to  the  principle  of  representation  according 
to  population  prompted  a  recognition  of  the  inconsist- 
ency of  granting  representation  to  the  small  incorporated 
towns,  and  a  prophecy  that  their  new  "  method  of  calcu- 
lation" would  "give  a  more  exact  Representation,  when 
applied  to  all  the  Towns  in  the  State,  than  any  that  we 
could  fix  upon."3  "An  exact  Representation  would  be  im- 
practicable even  in  a  System  of  Government  arising  from  the 
State  of  Nature,  and  much  more  so  in  a  state  already  di- 
vided into  nearly  three  hundred  Corporations."4  Thus, 
"  with  plainness  and  sincerity,"  they  aimed  at  harmonizing 
the  views  of  the  public  with  their  own  propositions  on  the 
more  important  features  of  constitutional  government,  and 
with  this  matter  of  fact  sponsorship  they  sent  forth  the  pro- 
posed instrument  of  government  to  those  in  whom  was 
vested  the  "undoubted  Right,  either  to  propose  such  Altera- 
tions and  Amendments  as  you  shall  judge  proper,  or,  to  give 
it  your  own  Sanction  in  its  present  Form,  or,  totally  to  re- 
ject it."5     The  frame  of  government  thus  completed  and  sub- 

1  Journal  of the  Convention,  219. 

2  Ibid.,  218. 

Cf.  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1820,  257.  Cf.  Action  of  Northampton,  May 
22,  17S0:  "And  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  admit  so  black  a  thought,  as  to 
imagine  that  the  convention  had  an  intention,  by  their  address,  to  beguile  their 
constituents  into  a  supposition,  that  provision  was  made  in  the  frame  of  Govern- 
ment, for  a  representative  of  the  persons,  as  well  as  for  the  property,  of  the 
Commonwealth,  when  really  at  the  same  time  they  were  conscious  that  it  was 
not  so  in  fact;    .  .  .  ."     Jlawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

8  Journal  of  the  Convention,  219. 

4  Ibid.,  219.      Cf.  The   Constitutional  Propositions,     .  .  .     Boston,  1S53,  p.  46. 

-'  Journal  of  the  Convention,  216. 


245]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  245 

mitted  to  the  action  of  the  sanctioning  power,  was  such,  both 
in  contents  and  in  historical  position,  as  to  demand  attention. 
In  the  constitution  itself  is  found  the  justification  of  the 
opinions  passed  upon  it,  as  well  as  the  explanation  of  the 
pre-eminence  granted  it  in  the  constitutional  history  of  the 
period.  Both  in  essence  and  in  form  it  stands  as  a  type  of 
the  best  workmanship  and  the  highest  scholarship.  In 
theory  it  embodied  the  growth  of  English  freedom,  the  his- 
tory of  the  English  constitution,  and  the  development  in  the 
outlying  parts  of  the  empire  of  organizations  of  local  govern- 
ment fully  adapted  to  subsist  in  relations  other  than  those  of 
an  expanding  monarchical  state.  The  formation  of  this 
constitution  followed,  furthermore,  the  adoption  of  thirteen 
constitutions  in  other  states,1  and  its  framers  thus  were 
enabled  to  profit  by  the  large  amount  of  practical  experi- 
ence thus  made  available.  The  opportunity  for  excellent 
work  was  favorable ;  the  leaders  of  the  body  to  which  this 
opportunity  was  presented  were  men  of  unusual  training ; 
and  the  result  was  a  document  whose  character  is  attested 
by  its  use,  with  certain  modifications,  to  the  present  day.2 
Embracing  in  its  history  such  a  period,  it  serves  both  as  a 
summary  of  the  past  and  as  an  introduction  to  the  state 
constitutional  history  of  the  century  succeeding  its  adoption. 
It  is  the  first  of  the  distinctly  modern  constitutions,  as  well 
as  the  last,  with  one  exception,3  of  the  revolutionary  era. 

1  Each  of  the  thirteen  colonies,  except  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  had 
framed  a  constitution;  South  Carolina  and  New  Hampshire  had  each  formed 
two  before  1780;  and  Vermont  also  had  formed  one.  Including  the  Massa- 
chusetts Constitution  of  1778,  thus  far  fourteen  in  all  had  been  drafted  and  either 
put  in  force  or  submitted  to  popular  vote. 

2 The  separation  of  Maine  from  Massachusetts  made  necessary  some  alteration 
in  the  constitution;  on  this  question  fewer  than  one-fourth  of  the  qualified  voters 
gave  any  expression,  and  of  18,349  votes,  6,593  were  against  revision. 

sThe  exception  of  New  Hampshire  is  more  one  of  chronology  than  anything 
else.  The  constituent  work  in  that  state  was  at  the  time  recognized  as  a  con- 
scious imitation  of  that  of  Massachusetts. 


246  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [246 

That  it  approximated  more  nearly  than  its  predecessors  to 
the  modern  type  appears  in  nothing  more  distinctly  than  in 
its  form.  For  the  first  time  the  usual  long  series  of  miscel- 
laneous and  loosely  connected  articles  gives  way  to  a  sys- 
tematic arrangement  of  subjects  and  to  a  clear,  if  not  rigid, 
differentiation  of  material  on  those  general  lines  along  which 
the  functions  of  government  are  differentiated.  Such  is 
found  in  the  several  chapters  comprised  in  the  "  frame  of 
government,"  or  body  of  the  constitution.  Preceding  that, 
however,  are  two  important  parts  of  the  document,  the  pre- 
amble and  the  declaration  of  rights. 

The  inclusion  of  a  preamble  made  this  constitution  to 
differ  from  several  others  of  the  period  ;x  and  from  those  hav- 
ing a  preamble  this  one  is  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  use 
is  made  of  these  preliminary  paragraphs  not  to  justify  the 
political  theories  of  the  Revolution,  but  to  state  the  underlying 
principles  of  the  government  which  was  about  to  be  insti- 
tuted.2 Thus,  first,  it  is  stated  that  the  end  of  the  institution 
and  maintenance  of  government  is  "to  secure  the  existence 

'The  constitutions  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  New  Hampshire  (1784),  and  Vir 
ginia,  contained  no  preamble.  Practically  all  of  the  constitutions  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made  in  the  following  pages  are  to  be  found  in  Poore,  Charters  and  Con- 
stitutions. The  bill  of  rights  of  the  Delaware  constitution  of  1776  is  in  5 
American  Archives,  II.,  286,  287.  The  constitution  proposed  in  New  Hampshire 
in  1779  is  in  Collections  of  the  New  Hampshire  Historical'  Society,  IV.,  154-161. 

2 The  New  Jersey  preamble  referred  to  the  compact  of  government;  alluded  to 
the  withdrawal  of  protection,  the  dissolution  of.  government,  the  need  of  some 
government,  and  to  the  advice  of  the  Continental  Congress.  The  South  Carolina 
preamble  of  1776  uses  in  a  political  way  such  topics  as  the  British  claims,  the  ex- 
tension of  admiralty  jurisdiction,  the  affairs  in  Massachusetts,  the  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment, the  use  of  force  by  the  English,  the  dissolution  of  the  Assembly,  and  the 
unjustifiable  activity  of  Governor  Campbell.  The  Pennsylvania,  Vermont,  and 
New  Hampshire  (1776)  preambles  suggest  the  basis  of  their  authorization.  The 
New  York  preamble  quoted  in  full  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  cited  the 
resolution  of  July  9,  1776,  of  the  N.  Y.  Provincial  Congress,  and  quoted  the 
resolution  of  May  31,  1776,  of  the  same  body,  the  latter  including  the  resolution 
of  the  Continental  Congress  of  May  15,  1776. 


247]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  247 

of  the  body-politic;"  and  to  assure  the  individuals  therein 
the  safe  enjoyment  of  "  their  natural  rights,  and  the  bless- 
ings of  life;"  the  failure  to  attain  which  objects  invests  the 
people  with  a  "  right  to  alter  the  government,  and  to  take 
measures  necessary  for  their  safety,  prosperity  and  happi- 
ness." This  body  politic,  which  is  "  formed  by  a  voluntary 
association  of  individuals,"  is  further  described  as  "  a  social 
compact,1  by  which  the  whole  people  covenants  with  each 
citizen,  and  each  citizen  with  the  whole  people,  that  all  shall 
be  governed  by  certain  laws  for  the  common  good."2  Such 
a  body,  "the  people  of  Massachusetts,"  acknowledging  "the 
goodness  of  the  Great  Legislator  of  the  Universe,"  enter 
into  "  an  original,  explicit,  and  solemn  compact  with  each 
other;"  and  "agree  upon,  ordain  and  establish,  the  follow- 
ing Declaration  of  Rights,  and  Frame  of  Government,  as  the 
Constitution  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts." 
Having  thus  declared  their  conception  of  the  nature  of  the 
state,  a  more  extended  statement  is  made  of  those  princi- 
ples of  civil  and  religious  relationship  and  of  political  privi- 
leges which  are  held  to  attach  to  the  position  of  every  man 
in  civil  society,  and  which  cannot  be  considered  subject  to 
modification  at  the  option  of  the  government.  The  condi- 
tions on  which  man  surrenders  to  the  "body-politic"  his 
"alienable"  rights  must  be  distinctly  stated,  and  the  in- 
violate character  of  his  "  inalienable  "  rights  must  be  recog- 

1  Cf.  Borgeaud,  Etablissement  et  Revision  dest  Constitutions,  Paris,  1893,  1&T' 

2Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  1.  Cf.  Virginia 
Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  3.  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  1  : 
"That  all  government  of  right  originates  from  the  people,  is  founded  in  compact 
only,  and  instituted  solely  for  the  good  of  the  whole." 

Mr.  Simonds,  rjuoting  this  paragraph  in  the  Convention  of  1853,  said  :  "  Here  I 
recognize  the  principle  of  a  government  dividing  itself  up  into  two  classes,  the 
citizen  covenanting  with  the  whole  people,  and  the  whole  people  covenanting 
with  the  citizen."  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  s$5J,  I.,  210. 
Cf.  Boston  Town  Records,  XXVL,  282. 


248  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [248 

nized.1  The  form  of  such  recognition  was  already  familiar 
to  Englishmen,  and  the  necessity  of  such  had  been  repeat- 
edly emphasized.  That  necessity,  to  be  sure,  was  less  when 
the  people  possessed  all  the  powers  of  government  than  it  was 
in  the  time  of  Charles  or  William;  yet  the  incorporation  of  a 
declaration  of  rights  into  so  many  of  the  constitutions  of  the 
time  throws  into  prominence  the  carefulness  and  the  con- 
sistency of  the  men  who  framed  them.  Others  than  those 
of  Massachusetts  realized  keenly  the  vital  importance  of  a 
clear  and  abiding  statement  of  the  immunities  and  privileges 
of  man  in  civil  society.2  Especially  on  these  points  did 
Massachusetts  voice  the  general  sentiment  throughout  the 
new  nation,  and  in  this  connection  most  clearly  did  the 
framers  of  her  constitution  draw  upon  the  work  of  other  men. 
One-half  of  the  thirty  sections  of  the  Massachusetts  de- 
claration of  rights  aim  in  various  ways  at  the  establishment 
of  civil  liberty.  The  opening  statement  that  "all  men  are 
born  free  and  equal,3  and  have  certain  natural,  essential,  and 

1  Cf.  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights  which  asserts  that  all  men  "  have  certain 
inherent  rights,  of  which,  when  they  enter  into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot, 
by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  their  posterity;"  Art.  1.  Cf.  Vermont  De- 
claration of  Rights,  Arts.  1,  3.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights,  (1784) 
Art.  3 :  "  When  men  enter  into  a  state  of  societv,  they  surrender  up  some  of  their 
natural  rights  to  that  society,  in  order  to  insure  the  protection  of  others;  and, 
without  such  an  equivalent,  the  surrender  is  void."  Ibid.,  Art.  4:  "Among  the 
natural  rights,  some  are  in  their  very  nature  unalienable,  because  no  equivalent 
can  be  given  or  received  for  them." 

2  A  Declaration  of  Rights  was  adopted  by  Delaware,  Maryland,  New  Hamp- 
shire (1784),  North  Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  Vermont,  and  Virginia. 

3  As  to  this,  Northampton,  May  22,  1780,  voted  that  "this  is  true  only  with 
respect  to  the  right  of  dominion,  and  jurisdiction,  over  one  another."  Hawley 
Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

Although  the  courts  soon  declared  that  the  constitution  prohibited  slavery  in 
Massachusetts,  Hawley,  in  his  "Criticism,"  wrote :  "  I  fear  it  will  take  a  Century, 
wholly  to  abolish  and  take  away  the  inhuman,  unjust  and  cruel  practice,  of  en- 
slaving our  fellow  men.  Why  therefore  shall  we  affect  to  conceal  and  cover 
when  we  are  too  unwilling  to  annihilate  and  put  an  end  to?     Such  disguises  will 


249]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  249 

unalienable  rights;"  is  followed  by  the  inclusion  among  such 
of  the  right  to  possess  and  enjoy  life,  liberty,  and  happi- 
ness.1 The  enjoyment  of  these  tights  is  to  be  guaranteed 
by  law;  whence  arises  the  duty  of  the  individual  to  "con- 
tribute his  share  to  the  expense  of  this  protection;"2  but  the 
alienation  of  one's  property  is  subjected  to  strict  legal  limi- 
tations. General  warrants,3  unreasonable  searches,4  and  ex 
post  facto  laws,s  are  forbidden.     Prompt,  free,  and  complete 

not  remove  the  shame  and  just  reproach  while  the  iniquitous  practice  is  notorious." 
Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection.  See  Moore,  Notes  on  the  History  of 
Slavery  in  Massachusetts.     New  York,  1866,  200-223. 

'Art.  1.  In  the  report  of  October  28,  1779,  this  read:  "All  men  are  born 
equally  free  and  independent,  .  .  .  ."     Journal,  193. 

The  Virginia  Declaration,  Art.  1,  states:  "That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally 
free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  inherent  rights,  of  which,  when  they  enter 
into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot,  by  any  compact,  deprive  or  divest  their  pos- 
terity; namely,  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with  the  means  of  acquiring 
and  possessing  property,  and   pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety." 

The  Vermont  declaration  is,  "That  all  men  are  born  equally  free  and  independ- 
ent, .  .  .  ."  Cf.  the  constitutions  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Hampshire,  and  for  an 
omission  of  such  cf.  those  of  Maryland  and  North  Carolina. 

2  Art.  10.  Cf.  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  8 :  "  every  member  of  so- 
ciety   is  bound  to  contribute  his  proportion  towards  the  expence  of  that 

protection,  .  .  .  ."  Cf.  Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  9  :  "  every  member 
of  society  ...  is  bound  to  contribute  his  proportion  towards  the  expense  of  that 
protection,  .  .  .  ."  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  10:  "That  every 
member  of  society  hath  a  right  to  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  and  therefore  is  bound  to  contribute  his  proportion  towards  the 
expense  of  that  protection,  and  yield  his  personal  service  when  necessary,  or  an 
equivalent  thereto;    .  .  .  ."     5  American  Archives,  II.,  286. 

3  Art.  14.  Cf.  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  10 ;  Vermont  Declaration  of 
Rights,  Art.  it;  North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  11 ;  New  Hampshire 
Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  19;  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  23; 
Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  10;  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  17. 

4  Art.  14. 

5  Art.  24.  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  15;  New  Hampshire 
Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  23;  North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  24;   Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  11. 


250  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [250 

justice  should  be  assured  ; '  jury  trial  is  not  to  be  limited,2  and 
attention  is  given  to  the  process  of  the  courts.3  The  right  to 
bear  arms4  and  the  freedom  of  the  press5  are  assured,  and 
the  usual  position  is  taken  against  standing  armies  in  time  of 
peace6  and  against  the  unrestricted  quartering  of  soldiers.7 

1  Art.  11.  Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  14:  "Every 
subject  of  this  state  is  entitled  to  a  certain  remedy,  by  having  recourse  to  the 
laws,  for  all  injuries  he  may  receive  in  his  person,  property  or  character,  to  obtain 
right  and  justice  freely,  without  being  obliged  to  purchase  it;  completely,  and 
without  any  denial;  promptly,  and  without  delay,  conformably  to  the  laws." 
Cf.  North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Arts.  12,  13;  Delaware  Declaration  of 
Rights,  Art.  12.  The  privileges  of  habeas  corpus  are  assured  in  the  body  of 
the  Constitution,  Chap.  VI.,  Art.  7.  Cf.  Georgia  Constitution,  Art.  60;  New 
Hampshire  Constitution  (1784).     Poore,  p.  1292. 

2  Art.  12,  15.  Cf.  Georgia  Constitution,  Art.  61 ;  Maryland  Declaration  of 
Rights,  Art.  19;  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights,  (1784)  Arts.  15,  20,  21; 
New  Jersey  Constitution,  Art.  22;  New  York  Constitution,  Art.  41 ;  North  Caro- 
lina Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  9;  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Arts.  9, 
II;  South  Carolina  Constitution,  (1776)  Art.  18;  South  Carolina  Constitution, 
(1778)  Art.  41;  Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights,  Arts.  10,  13;  Vermont  Con- 
stitution, Sec.  22;  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Arts.  8,  11 ;  New  Hampshire 
Declaration  of  Rights,  (1779)  Art.  7;  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Arts.  13,  14. 

3  Arts.  12,  13,  26,  29.  Thus,  for  instance,  excessive  charges  for  fines  or  bail  are 
forbidden;  Cf.  Georgia  Constitution,  Art.  59;  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  22;  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights,  (1784)  Art.  ^3-  North  Carolina 
Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  10;  Pennsylvania  Constitution,  Sec.  29;  Vermont 
Constitution,  Sec.  26;  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Sec.  9;  Delaware  Declara- 
tion of  Rights,  Art.  16. 

*Art.  17.  North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  17;  Pennsylvania 
Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  13;   Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  15. 

5  Art.  16.  Cf.  Georgia  Constitution,  Art.  61 ;  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  38;  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights,  (1784)  Art.  22;  North  Caro- 
lina Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  15;  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  12; 
South  Carolina  Constitution,  (1778)  Art.  43;  Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  14;  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  12;  Delaware  Declaration  of 
Rights,  Art.  23. 

6  Art.  17.  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  26;  New  Hampshire  Declara- 
tion of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  25;  North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  17; 
Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  13;  Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art. 
15;  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  13;  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  19. 

7  Art.  27.  Cf  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  28;  New  Hampshire 
Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  27;  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  21. 


251]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  2 5  I 

The  defence  of  civil  liberty  being  practically  complete,  a 
further  series  of  statements  was  made  relative  *to  the  location 
of  sovereignty  and  to  the  exercise  of  political  rights.  Thus 
it  is  declared  that  "  the  people  alone  have  an  incontestible, 
unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  institute  government; 
and  to  reform,  alter,  or  totally  change  the  same,  when  their 
protection,  safety,  prosperity  and  happiness  require  it."1 
Similarly:  "The  people  of  this  Commonwealth  have  the 
sole  and  exclusive  right  of  governing  themselves  as  a  free, 
sovereign,  and  independent  state;"2  and  as  such  power  is 
thus  vested  all  officers  of  government,  "  whether  legislative, 
executive,  or  judicial,  are  their  substitutes  and  agents,  and 
are    at   all    times    accountable    to    them."3     Naturally,    the 

1  Art.  7.  Cf.  Maryland:  "  all  government  of  right  originates  from  the  people, 
is  founded  in  compact  only,  and  instituted  solely  for  the  good  of  the  whole." 
Poore,  817.  Cf.  North  Carolina:  "That  all  political  power  is  vested  in  and  de- 
rived from  the  people  only."     Ibid.,  1409. 

Cf.  Art.  4  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights  of  the  New  Hampshire  proposed  consti- 
tution, (1779)  :  "The  whole  and  ertire  power  of  government  of  this  State  is  vested 
in,  and  must  be  derived  from  the  people  thereof,  and  from  no  other  source  what- 
soever." Collections  of  ATew  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  iv.,  155.  Delaware 
Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  1  :  "That  all  government  of  right  originates  from  the 
people,  is  founded  in  compact  only,  and  instituted  solely  for  the  good  of  the 
whole."     Cf.  Article  on  Connecticut  in  New  York  Packet,  no.  12,  Mar.  21,  1776. 

2  Art.  4.  Cf.  New  Hampshire  (1784):  "The  people  of  this  state  have  the 
sole  and  exclusive  right  of  governing  themselves  as  a  free,  sovereign,  and  inde- 
pendent state,  .  .  .  ."     Poore,  1281. 

Cf.  Pennsylvania:  "the  community  hath  an  indubitable,  unalienable  and  in- 
defeasible right  to  reform,  alter,  or  abolish  government  in  such  manner  as  shall 
be  by  that  community  judged  most  conducive  to  the  public  weal."     Ibid.,  1541. 

Rufus  Choate  said  in  1853:  "  ...  by  1776  or  certainly  1780  we  grasped  com- 
pletely the  American  idea  that  the  people  were  the  source  of  sovereignty;  that 
they  are  equal;  that  they  alone  are  to  be  represented  in  the  popular  branch  of 
government,  and  that  they  are  to  be  represented  equally  there."  Debates  and 
Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  1833,  I.  886. 

3 Art.  5.  Cf.  Maryland:  "That  all  persons  invested  with  the  legislative  or 
executive  powers  of  government  are  the  trustees  of  the  public,  and,  as  such,  ac- 
countable for  their  conduct;  .  .  .  ."  Poore,  817.  Cf.  New  Hampshire,  (1784)  : 
"All  power  residing  originally  in,  and  being  derived  from  the  people,  all  the 


252  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [2$2 

"  people  have  a  right,  in  an  orderly  and  peaceable  manner, 
to  assemble  to  consult  upon  the  common  good  ;"'  to  instruct 
their  representatives;  and  to  address  the  legislature.2  The 
people  are  urged  to  practice  a  "frequent  recurrence  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  constitution,  and  a  constant 
adherence  to  those  of  piety,  justice,  moderation,  temperance, 
industry,  and  frugality,"  and  "  to  have  a  particular  attention 
to  all  those  principles,  in  the  choice  of  their  officers  and 
representatives:"3  since  "they  have  a  right  to  require  of 
their  law-givers  and  magistrates,  an  exact  and  constant  ob- 
servance of  them,  in  the  formation  and  execution  of  the  laws 
necessary  for  the  good  administration  of  the  Common- 
wealth."4 

magistrates  and  officers  of  government,  are  their  substitutes  and  agents,  and  at  all 
times  accountable  to  them."  Poore,  1 581.  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  5. 

"  Proper  Democracy  is  where  the  people  have  all  the  power  in  themselves,  who 
choose  whom  they  please  for  their  head  for  a  time,  and  dismiss  him  when  they 
please;  make  their  own  laws,  choose  all  their  own  officers,  and  replace  them  at 
pleasure."  "  The  Interest  of  America  "  by  "  Spartanus,"  in  Freeman's  Journal, 
no.  4,  June  15,  1776. 

Cf.  Pennsylvania:  "That  all  power  being  originally  inherent  in,  and  conse- 
quently derived  from,  the  people;  therefore  all  officers  of  government,  whether 
legislative  or  executive,  are  their  trustees  and  servants,  and  at  all  times  account- 
able to  them."     Poore,  1 541. 

Action  of  New  Salem,  February  1,  15,  1773:  "we  take  it  for  Granted :  that 
Governors  are  the  trustees  of  Society:  .  .  .  We  think  Likewise  that  all  trustees 
are  in  reason  answerable  to  those  who  have  Lodged  a  trust  in  their  hands."  Re- 
volutionary Corresp.,  I.,  676,  680.     Bancroft  Collection. 

'Art.  19.  Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  32;  North 
Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  18;  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  16;   Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  18. 

2  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  II. 

3Art.  18.  Cf.  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  14;  Cf.  Virginia  Dec- 
aration  of  Rights,  Art.  15;  Vermont  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  16. 

4  Art.   18. 


253]  G °  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHU SETTS  253 

"All  elections  ought  to  be  free;"1  those  eligible  have  an 
equal  right  both  to  elect  and  to  be  elected.  But  that  those 
elected  may  not  become  oppressors,  "  the  people  have  a 
right,  at  such  periods  and  in  such  manner  as  they  shall  es- 
tablish by  their  frame  of  government,  to  cause  their  public 
officers  to  return  to  private  life;"2  while  further  consideration 
of  the  public  service  has  the  significant  conclusion  that  "  the 
idea  of  a  man  born  a  magistrate,  law-giver,  or  judge,  is 
absurd  and  unnatural."3 

The  legislature  is  the  subject  of  certain  articles,  in  which 
that  branch  is  forbidden  to  pass  any  ex  post  facto  laws4  or  to 
declare  any  subject  guilty  of  treason  or  felony.5  To  sus- 
pend and  to  execute  the  laws  is  wholly  within  the  compe- 
tence of  the  legislature;6  in  each  house  freedom  of  speech  is 
assured;7  and  frequent  sessions  are  recommended.8  An 
equally    important   declaration    is   the  twenty- third    article: 

'Art.  9.  Cf  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  5;  New  Hampshire  Declara- 
tion of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  n ;  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  7;  Ver- 
mont Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  8;  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  6; 
Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  6. 

2  Art.  8.  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  4,  31 ;  North  Carolina  Decla- 
ration of  Rights,  Art.  20;  Pennsylvania  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  6;  Vermont 
Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  7.  The  theory  of  this  was  well  expressed  by  Samuel 
Johnston  in  his  letter  from  Halifax,  N.  C,  April  20,  1776,  to  James  Iredell: 
"After  all  it  appears  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  check  on  the  Representatives 
of  the  people  in  a  democracy,  but  the  people  themselves;  and  in  order  that  the 
check  may  be  more  efficient,  I  would  have  annual  elections."  Jones,  Defence 
of  North  Carolina,  279,  280. 

3  Art.  6,  Cf.  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  4. 

4  Art.  24. 

5  Art.  25,  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  16. 

"Art.  20,  Cf  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  7;  Delaware  Declaration  of 
Rights,  Art.  7. 

7  Art.  21,  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  S;  New  Hampshire  Declara- 
tion of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  30. 

8  Art.  22,  Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  31 ;  Dela- 
ware Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  8. 


254  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [254 

"No  subsidy,  charge,  tax,  impost,  or  duties,  ought  to  be  es- 
tablished, fixed,  laid,  or  levied,  under  any  pretext  whatso- 
ever, without  the  consent  of  the  people,  or  their  representa- 
tives in  the  legislature."1 

Turning  to  matters  of  religion,  it  is  stated  to  be  "  the  duty 
of  all  men  in  society,  publicly,  and  at  stated  seasons,  to  wor- 
ship "  God.  In  the  same  article  perfect  freedom  is  assured 
to  each  one  to  worship  "  in  the  manner  and  season  most 
agreeable  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience ;  or  for  his 
religious  profession  or  sentiments;  provided  he  doth  not  dis- 
turb the  public  peace,  or  obstruct  others  in  their  religious 
worship."2     As  has  already  been   indicated,  this,  and  espec- 

1  Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  28;  Maryland  Decla- 
ration of  Rights,  Art.  12;   North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  16. 

2  Art.  2.  Cf.  Georgia  Constitution,  Art.  56;  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of 
Rights,  Arts.  33,  34;  Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Arts.  5, 
6;  Cf  New  Jersey  Constitution,  Arts.  18,  19;  Cf.  New  York  Constitution,  Art. 
38;  Cf.  North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  19;  Cf.  Pennsylvania  Decla- 
tion  of  Rights,  Art.  2;  Cf  South  Carolina  Constitution  (1778),  Art.  38;  Cf  Ver- 
mont Declaration  of  Rights,  Art  3;  Cf.  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights.  Art.  16; 
Cf  Delaware  Constitution,  Art.  29;  Cf.  Delaware  Declaration  of  Rights,  Arts.  2> 
3;  Cf.  New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1779),  Art.  5:  "The  future  leg- 
islature of  this  State  shall  make  no  laws  to  infringe  the  rights  of  conscience,  or 
any  other  of  the  natural,  unalienable  Rights  of  Men,  or  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
God,  or  against  the  Protestant  religion."  Collections  of  the  Arew  Hampshire  His- 
torical Society,  IV '.,  155. 

In  the  Mass.  Convention  of  1820  Mr.  Dearborn,  of  Roxbury,  said :  "Of  the 
constitutions  of  the  several  United  States,  those  of  this  State  and  of  Maryland  were 
the  only  ones  which  were  marked  by  bigotry  and  ecclesiastical  intolerance.  This 
was  owing  to  peculiar  circumstances  existing  at  the  time  of  their  adoption. 
These  circumstances  are  passed  away."     Jotirnal  of  the  Constitution  of  1S20,  171. 

Speaking  of  this,  Mr.  Hubbard,  in  1820,  "  denied  that  our  happiness  and  good 
morals  were  owing  to  the  third  article;  on  the  contrary  that  article  grew  out  of 
our  good  morals.  .  .  .  No  law  was  passed  until  iSco  to  enforce  this  provision; 
so  that  it  remained  for  twenty  years  a  dead  letter,  .  .  ."      Ibid.   397. 

The  Address  of  the  Convention  of  1820  stated:  "  It  is  known  to  us  that  the 
eminent  men  who  framed  the  constitution  under  which  we  have  lived  bestowed 
on  the  only  article  of  the  declaration  of  rights  which  has  occasioned  much  dis- 
cussion among  us  the  greatest  attention."     Ibid.,  623. 


2  5  5  ]  G  °  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSETTS  2$$ 

ially  the  succeeding  article,  occasioned,  both  in  and  out  of 
the  convention,  a  vigorous  debate.  The  latter  article  is  not- 
able for  its  spirit  of  New  England  theocracy.  Its  provisions 
rest  on  the  assumption  that  "good  order  and  preservation  of 
civil  government,  essentially  depend  upon  piety,  religion  and 
morality;"1  to  secure  which  the  people  assert  their  right  to 
direct  the  legislature  to  "  authorize  and  require  the  several 
towns,  parishes,  precincts,  and  other  bodies-politic,  or  re- 
ligious societies,  to  make  suitable  provision,  at  their  own  ex- 
pense, for  the  institution  of  the  public  worship  of  God,  and 
for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  public  protestant  teachers 
of  piety,  religion  and  morality,  in  all  cases  where  such  pro- 
vision shall  not  be  made  voluntarily."  The  selection  of 
public  teachers  is  left  to  the  towns,  societies,  or  other  bodies. 
The  money  paid  by  each  man  shall,  if  he  require  it,  be  used 
for  the  support  of  a  teacher  of  his  own  denomination,  "  pro- 
vided there  be  any  on  whose  instructions  he  attends :  other- 
wise it  may  be  paid  towards  the  support  of  the  teacher  or 
teachers  of  the  parish  or  precinct  in  which  the  said  monies 
are  raised."  Equal  protection  of  the  law  was  accorded  to  all 
denominations  of  peaceable  Christians,  and  the  subordina- 
tion of  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  was  never  to  be 
established  by  law.  The  whole  article  was  made  still  more 
tangible  to  each  citizen  by  the  action  of  the  people  in  assum- 
ing to  themselves  the  right  to  invest  the  legislature  "with 
authority  to  enjoin  upon  all  subjects  an  attendance  upon  the 
instructions  of  the  public  teachers  aforesaid,  at  stated  times 

1  Art.  3,  as  reported  October  28,  1779,  began  :  "  Good  morals  being  necessary 
to  the  preservation  of  civil  society,"  the  legislature  has  the  "right,  and  ought,  to 
provide  at  the  expense  of  the  subject,  if  necessary,  a  suitable  support  fur  the  pub- 
lic worship  of  God,  and  of  the  teachers  of  religion  and  morals;  and  to  enjoin 
upon  all  the  subjects  an  attendance  upon  their  instructions,  at  stated  times  and 
seasons;  Provided  there  be  any  such  teacher  on  whose  ministry  they  can  con- 
scientiously and  conveniently  attend."  The  article  then  contained  nothing 
further,  except  the  clause,  as  in  the  text,  on  the  disposal  of  money  paid  for  such 
support.     Journal  of  the  Convention,  193. 


256  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [256 

and  seasons,  if  there  be  any  on  whose  instructions  they  can 
conscientiously  and  conveniently  attend." 

The  conclusion  of  the  declaration  of  rights  as  reported 
October  28,  1779,  was  as  follows:  "The  judicial  depart- 
ment of  the  State  ought  to  be  separate  from,  and  indepen- 
dent of,  the  legislative  and  executive  powers."1  This  theory 
of  government  had  been  vigorously  supported ;  in  it  was 
supposed  to  be  a  safeguard  of  liberty;  and  to  it  in  theory 
there  was  a  strong  prejudice.  This  made  natural  the  de- 
velopment of  the  theory  from  the  earlier  crude  statement  to 
the  following  :  "  In  the  government  of  this  commonwealth, 
the  legislative  department  shall  never  exercise  the  executive 
and  judicial  powers,  or  either  of  them.  The  executive  shall 
never  exercise  the  legislative  and  judicial  powers,  or  either  of 
them.  The  judicial  shall  never  exercise  the  legislative  or  ex- 
ecutive powers,  or  either  of  them  :  to  the  end  it  may  be  a  gov- 
ernment of  laws  and  not  of  men." 2  While  those  parts  of  the 
declaration  of  rights  pertaining  to  civil  rights  were  a  normal 
expression  of  free  Englishmen  of  the  time,  while  the  utterances 
which  it  contained  on  political  rights  and  on  sovereignty  were 
purely  a  definition  of  the  Revolution,  and  while  the  pro- 
visions on  religion  were  a  not  unnatural  outcome  of  a  Mass- 

1  Art.  31.  The  bill  of  rights  of  October  28,  1779,  contained  31  articles,  but  ar- 
ticles 12  and  14  were  combined  in  Art.  12  of  the  later  draft;  the  later  form,  how- 
ever, omitted  the  provision  for  a  unanimous  vote  in  jury  trials. 

2 Georgia  Constitution,  Art.  1:  "The  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary  de- 
partments shall  be  separate  and  distinct,  so  that  neither  exercise  the  powers  pro- 
perly belonging  to  the  other."  Cf.  Maryland  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  6;  Cf. 
North  Carolina  Declaration  of  Rights,  Art.  4;  Cf.  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Art.  5  :  "  That  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  of  the  State  should  be  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  from  the  judiciary;    .  .  .  ." 

New  Hampshire  Declaration  of  Rights  (1784),  Art.  37:  "  In  the  government 
of  this  state,  the  three  essential  powers  thereof,  to  wit,  the  legislative,  executive 
and  ju  licial,  ought  to  be  kept  as  separate  from  and  independent  of  each  other,  as 
the  nature  of  a  free  government  will  a<lmit.  or  as  is  consistent  with  that  claim  of 
connection  that  binds  the  whole  fabric  of  the  constitution  in  one  indissoluble 
bond  of  union  and  amity." 


2 5  f\  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSE TTS  257 

achusetts  convention  of  the  time,  the  tripartite  division  of 
government  appears  as  one  of  the  new  and  striking  products 
of  the  eighteenth  century.1  Although  owing  its  inception  to 
no  originality  of  the  Americans,  it  was  due  to  their  clear 
understanding  of  political  relations,  to  their  insistence  upon 
the  most  careful  expression  of  those  relations,  that  it  at  this 
time  became  a  part  of  the  constitutional  system  of  the 
American  commonwealths.2  Such  in  theory,  it  was  other- 
wise in  fact;  for  the  theory  and  the  actual  situation  could 
rarely,  if  ever,  coincide,3  although  in  many  points  an  approx- 
imate coincidence  would  be  attained,  and  the  independence, 
thus,  of  each  branch  of  government  assured. 

The  remainder  of  the  constitution  comprised  the  "  frame 
of  government,"  at  the  opening  of  which  the  position  earlier 
stated  was  reaffirmed  ;  there  again  the  people  "solemnly  and 
mutually  agree  with  each  other,  to  form  themselves  into  a 
free,  sovereign,  and  independent  body-politic  or  state."     The 

'Joseph  Story  said  in  1820:  "Our  whole  system  of  government  is  novel.  It  is 
a  great  experiment  in  the  science  of  politics.  The  very  principle  of  representa- 
tion and  the  theory  of  a  division  of  powers  is  of  modern  origin,  as  are  many  of 
our  dearest  and  most  valuable  institutions."  Journal  of  the  Convention  0/1820, 
290. 

2  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1820,  267. 

3  Cf.  Speech  of  Daniel  Webster,  in  1S20:  "Nor  has  it  been  found  easy,  nor  in 
all  cases  possible,  to  preserve  the  judicial  department  from  the  progress  of  legis- 
lative encroachment.  ...  As  if  Montesquieu  had  never  demonstrated  the  neces- 
sity of  separating  the  departments  of  government;  as  if  Mr.  Adams  had  not  done 
the  same  thing,  with  equal  ability,  and  more  clearness,  in  his  defence  of  the 
American  Constitution;  as  if  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Hamilton  and  Mr.  Madison 
were  already  forgotten;  we  see,  all  around  us,  a  tendency  to  extend  the  legis- 
lative power  over  the  proper  sphere  of  the  other  departments.  ...  If  we  look 
through  the  several  constitutions  of  the  states,  we  shall  perceive  that  generally 
the  departments  are  most  distinct  and  independent,  where  the  legislature  is  com- 
posed of  two  houses,  with  equal  authority,  and  mutual  checks.  If  all  legislative 
power  be  in  one  popular  body,  all  other  power,  sooner  or  later,  will  be  there 
also."  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1820,  306,  307.  Cf.  Ibid.,  475,  476.  Cf. 
J.  Adams  to  R.  Rush,  May  14,  1821.  Works  of  John  Adams,  X.,  397.  Cf. 
Elliot,  Debates,  II.,  504,  505;    III.,  608. 


258  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [258 

organization  of  this  commonwealth  was  along  the  lines  indi- 
cated, and  of  the  six  chapters  of  the  "  frame"  the  first  three 
were  devoted,  respectively,  to  the  legislative,  the  executive, 
and  the  judicial  power. 

To  the  provision  for  a  bicameral  legislature  was  attached 
the  grant  to  each  house  of  a  negative  on  the  other.  Thus 
assured  of  their  favorite  "check  and  balance"  system1,  the 
constructive  work  could  proceed  on  the  broad  lines  incident 
thereto.  Yet  their  theories  were  accentuated  in  practice  by 
the  adoption  for  each  house  of  a  different  basis  of  represen- 
tation. The  forty  senators,  thus,  were  assigned  to  several 
districts,  coincident  then  with  the  counties  for  the  sake  of 
convenience,2  in  "  the  proportion  of  public  taxes  paid  by  the 
said  Districts;"  but  with  the  limitations  that  there  should 
never  be  less  than  thirteen  districts,  and  that  no  district 
should  ever  be  entitled  to  more  than  six  senators.3  The 
lower  house,  in  distinction,  was  intended  as  "  a  representa- 
tion of  the  people,  annually  elected,  and  founded  upon  the 
principle  of  equality."  Its  number  was  not  fixed,  but  the 
principle  of  town  representation  was  adopted,  with  a  modifi- 
cation admitting  the  effect  of  the  relative  size  of  town  popu- 
lations. Thus,  while  a  single  representative  was  allowed  to 
every  town  already  incorporated,  no  town  thereafter4  was  to 
be  incorporated  or  be  entitled  to  a  representative  unless  it 
contained   150  "rateable   polls,"5  each  increase  of  225  over 

1  Cf.  Elliot,  Debates,  II.,  103. 

2  A  single  exception  to  this  was  the  union  of  Nantucket  and  Dukes  in  a  single 
district. 

:>  In  the  convention  of  1820,  Mr.  Flint,  of  Reading,  said :  "  Had  it  not  been  for 
six  words  in  the  constitution,  relative  to  the  apportionment  of  senators,  the  people 
never  would  have  called  this  Convention."  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1820, 
133.      Cf.  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  1853,  845. 

4  Cf  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  f8jj,  869. 

5  In  the  convention  of  1820  it  was  proposed  to  make  population  instead  of  polls 
the  basis  of  representation.     Of  the  computation  on  polls,  Mr.  Lawrence  then 


259]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  259 

which  number  entitled  the  town  to  an  additional  representa- 
tive. Differing  in  this  respect,  each  house,  however,  was 
elected  annually,  and  by  virtually  the  same  electors,  the  sen- 
ators being  chosen  by  the  male  inhabitants  of  the  respective 
senatorial  district,  twenty-one  years  of  age,  owning  within  the 
commonwealth  a  freehold  estate  of  the  annual  income  of  ^3, 
or  any  estate  of  the  value  of  £60.  The  electors  of  the  lower 
house  must  have  similar  general  qualification,  and  must  have 
resided  in  the  town  where  they  voted  for  one  year  next  pre- 
ceding the  election ;  and  in  the  matter  of  the  alternative 
property  qualification,  the  freehold  estate  of  £3  must  in  this 
case  lie  in  the  town  of  residence.  Turning  to  the  qualifica- 
tions of  the  legislators,  a  senator  must  have  been  an  inhabi- 
tant of  the  commonwealth  for  five  years  immediately  preced- 
ing his  election,  he  must  at  the  time  of  his  election  be  a  resi- 
dent of  the  district  choosing  him,  and  he  must  further  own  a 
freehold  estate  in  the  commonwealth  of  £300,  or  an  estate, 
either  personal  or  mixed,  of  £600.  In  a  representative  it 
was  essential  that  for  one  year  immediately  preceding  his 
election  he  should  have  been  both  a  resident  and  an  owner 
of  a  freehold  estate  of  ^100  in  the  town  he  represented;  an 
alternative  property  qualification  was  the  ownership  of  any 
"  rateable  estate  "  valued  at  ^200.  On  ceasing  to  be  thus 
qualified  a  loss  of  his  seat  would  result. 

"  presumed  this  basis  never  would  have  been  adopted,  if  there  had  been  at  the 
time  of  the  framing  of  the  constitution  any  provision  for  the  periodical  enumera- 
tion of  the  inhabitants.  Polls  did  not  before  that  time  form  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation. By  the  laws  of  1692  and  1776,  the  number  of  freeholders  was  the 
basis.  There  was  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  constitution  no  mode  of 
ascertaining  the  number  of  inhabitants;  but  there  was  of  rateable  polls."  Jour- 
nal of  the  Convention  of  1820,  244.  Speaking  upon  this  matter  in  1820,  Joseph 
Story,  of  Salem,  later  Chief  Justice,  uttered  a  noteworthy  sentence :  "  I  have 
lived  long  enough  to  know  that  in  any  question  of  government,  something  is  to  be 
yielded  up  on  all  sides.  Conciliation  and  compromise  lie  at  the  origin  of  every 
free  government;  and  the  question  never  was  and  never  can  be,  what  is  abso- 
lutely best,  but  what  is  relatively  wise,  just  and  expedient."     Ibid.,  289. 


260  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \_260 

The  quorum  of  the  senate  was  fixed  at  sixteen  and  of  the 
house  at  sixty ;  the  processes  of  popular  election  were  indi- 
cated, as  were  also  the  principal  powers  of  the  legislature. 
Chief  among  these  last  was  the  power  to  erect  all  courts  "for 
the  hearing,  trying,  and  determining  of  all  manner  of  crimes, 
offenses,  pleas,  processes,  plaints,  actions,  matters,  causes, 
and  things  whatsoever,  arising  or  happening  within  the  Com- 
monwealth, or  between  or  concerning  persons  inhabiting  or 
residing,  or  brought  within  the  same ;  whether  the  same  be 
criminal  or  civil,  .  .  .  capital  or  not  capital,  .  .  .  real,  per- 
sonal, or  mixt;  ..."  Provision  was  made  for  a  decennial 
valuation  of  estates.  The  trial  of  impeachments  was  vested 
in  the  senate  alone.  The  usual  legislative  function  of  law- 
making was  expanded  into  an  enumeration  of  the  proper 
objects,  such  as  the  public  welfare  and  defence,  the  crea- 
tion and  control  of  an  administrative  and  of  a  military  system, 
the  provision  of  a  revenue,  and  the  disposal,  under  executive 
warrant,  of  the  public  funds.1  The  usual  privileges  of  legis- 
lative bodies  were  assured,  and  provision  made  for  annulling 
an  executive  veto  by  the  passage  of  the  returned  bill  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  in  each  house. 

The  executive  of  Massachusetts  was,  as  were  the  legisla- 
tors, elected  for  a  single  year ;  electors  of  the  latter  were  en- 
titled to  vote  for  the  former,  but  more  than  one  phase  of  the 
philosophy  of  the  time  was  emphasized  in  the  provisions  that 
the  chief  executive  should  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  the 
state  for  seven  years  immediately  preceding  his  election,  that 
he  should  own  a  freehold  of  ,£1000  in  the  state,  and  that  he 
should  "declare  himself  to  be  of  the  Christian  religion."  The 
calling,    proroguing,    and   dissolving   of   the    legislature,  the 

1  In  the  convention  of  1S20  Josiah  Quinry,  referring  to  the  convention  of  17S0, 
said:  "They  had  no  difficulty  in  providing  that  all  the  powers  which  were  then 
possessed  by  the  Provincial  legislature,  should  continue  to  be  exercised  by  the 
General  Court  of  the  Commonwealth,  with  the  limitation  which  before  existed." 
Journal  of  the  Convention  of 1820,  73. 


26 1 ]  GO  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA CHUSETTS  26 1 

power  of  pardon,  the  appointment  of  all  judicial  officers,  of 
sheriffs,  coroners,  and  registers  of  probate,  of  the  attorney-gen- 
eral and  solicitor-general,  and  the  power  to  grant,  by  warrant, 
the  public  money,  were  vested  in  the  governor ;  but  in  each  in- 
stance with  a  limitation  which  presented  a  peculiar  institution. 
From  the  senate  were  chosen  nine  men  by  the  two  houses ;  their 
seats  remained  vacant ;  if  nine  did  not  consent  to  the  new  service 
the  completion  was  effected  by  the  election  of  men  at  large. 
No  more  than  two  councillors  were  to  be  taken  from  any 
one  senatorial  district;  and  the  nine,  with  the  lieutenant-gov- 
ernor, were  to  advise  the  governor,  and  "  hold  and  keep  a 
Council,  for  the  ordering  and  directing  the  affairs  of  the 
commonwealth,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land.1" 

Completing  the  executive  department,  the  third  chapter 
provided  also  for  the  annual  election  by  joint  ballot  of  sen- 
ators and  representatives,  of  a  secretary,  treasurer  and 
receiver-general,  a  commissary,  naval  officers,  and  notaries 
public.  The  secretary  was  to  be  responsible  for  the  keep- 
ing of  the  state  records,  and  no  one  was  to  be  treasurer  and 
receiver- general  more  than  five  years  successively,  in  order, 
as  was  quaintly  stated,  that  the  citizens  "  may  be  assured, 
from  time  to  time,  that  the  monies  remaining  in  the  public 
treasury,  upon  the  settlement  and  liquidation  of  the  public 
accounts,  are  their  property "2 

Under  the  legislative  powers  provision  was  made  for  the 
erection  of  courts.  Chapter  three  added  a  variety  of  minor 
regulations,  such  as  that  the  probate  courts  should  be  held  on 

1  Cf.  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  iSjj,  I.,  502.  Journal  of 
the  Convention  of  1820,  209.  Cf.  Brooks  Adams,  Emancipation  of  Massachusetts, 
306. 

2  Northampton,  May  22,  1780,  expressed  the  wish  that  the  clause  on  the  treas- 
urer's term  of  office  "  should  be  expressed  in  such  Manner  that  the  People  may 
understand  the  Reason  why  the  Treasurer  cannot  with  Safety  to  the  Common- 
wealth hold  his  Office  more  than  five  years."  Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Col- 
lection. 


262  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [262 

fixed  days  at  such  places  "  as  the  convenience  of  the  people 
shall  require,"  that  the  powers  of  justices  of  the  peace  should 
not  continue  for  more  than  seven  years  without  renewal,  that 
the  tenure  of  all  officers  holding  by  commission  should  be 
expressly  stated  therein,  and  that  all  judicial  officers,  unless 
otherwise  directed  by  the  constitution,  should  hold  during 
good  behavior,  subject  only  to  removal  by  the  governor, 
with  the  consent  of  the  council,  and  on  the  address  of  both 
houses  of  the  legislature.  The  only  further  step  of  import- 
ance was  the  inclusion  in  this  chapter  of  a  duty  foreign  to 
an  independent  judiciary  and  inconsistent  with  the  theory 
of  the  tripartite  division  of  government.  It  was  decreed  as 
follows:  "  Each  branch  of  the  Legislature,  as  well  as  the 
Governor  and  Council,  shall  have  authority  to  require  the 
opinions  of  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court,  upon 
important  questions  of  law,  and  upon  solemn  occasions."1 

One  typical  peculiarity  of  the  Massachusetts  constitution 
was  the  careful  manner  in  which  the  corporate  privileges 
and  property  rights  of  the  President  and  Fellows  of  Harvard 
College,  acquired  through  the  Act  of  General  Court  of  1642, 
and  by  gifts  and  grants  at  various  other  times,  were  con- 
firmed to  them.2  The  continuance  of  the  instituting  act  in 
force  throughout  the  revolutionary  period  was  recognized, 
and  the  officers  were  named  who  should  represent  the  com- 

1  In  1820  Mr.  Story  said  that  "it  was  exceedingly  important  that  the  judiciary 
department  should,  in  the  language  of  the  constitution,  be  independent  of  the 
other  departments;  and  for  this  purpose,  that  it  should  not  be  in  the  power  of 
the  latter  to  call  in  the  judges  to  aid  them  for  any  purpose.  If  they  were  liable 
to  be  called  on,  there  was  extreme  danger  that  they  would  be  required  to  give 
opinions  in  cases  which  should  be  exclusively  of  a  political  character."  Journal 
of the  Convention  0/1820,  489.      Cf.  Ibid.,  629. 

2Josiah  Quincy  in  the  Convention  of  1820:  "The  gentleman's  argument  pro- 
ceeded upon  the  principle  that  the  constitution  made  some  alteration  in  the 
charter  of  Harvard  College.  But  it  was  not  so.  .  .  .  The  great  men  who  formed 
the  constitution  of  1780,  knew  how  sacred  pre-existing  chartered  rights  were." 
Journal  of  the  Convention  of  J820,  72. 


263]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASSA  CHUSE TTS  2 63 

monwealth  on  the  Board  of  Overseers,  as  during  the  contin- 
uance of  the  province  charter  the  governor,  deputy-governor, 
and  magistrates  had  done ;  but  it  was  further  "  provided  that 
nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  to  prevent  the  Legislature 
of  this  Commonwealth  from  making  such  alterations  in  the 
government  of  the  said  university,  as  shall  be  conducive  to 
its  advantage,  and  the  interest  of  the  republic  of  letters,  in  as 
full  a  manner  as  might  have  been  done  by  the  Legislature 
of  the  late  Province  of  the  Massachusetts-Bay."1 

The  fifth  chapter2  contained  a  further  section  not  found  in 
the  earlier  constitutions.  This  was  a  general  exhortation  to 
a  diffusion  of  "  wisdom  and  knowledge,  as  well  as  virtue,"  to 
the  encouragement  of  agriculture,  arts,  commerce,  and  man- 
ufactures, to  the  support  of  institutions  of  learning,  and  to 
the  development  of  "  public  and  private  charity,  industry, 
and  frugality,  honesty,  ....  good  humor,  and  all  social 
affections  and  generous  sentiments  among  the  people."3 

The  sixth,  and  concluding,  chapter  included  a  variety  of 
matters,  such  as  the  forms  of  oaths  of  office,  of  writs,  com- 
missions, and  the  enacting  style,  the  continuance,  until  altered 
or  made  void,  of  all  laws  previously  "  adopted,  used  and  ap- 
proved in  the  Province,  Colony  or  State  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,"  and  the  continuance  in  office,  until  the  appointment 
of  successors,  of  officers  serving  under  commission  of  the 
existing  government.  The  unbroken  existence  of  courts  and 
other  branches  of  government  was  assured  until  the  new  sys- 
tem went  into  operation.  The  disabilities  incident  to  plural- 
ity of  offices  were  stated.    Provision  was  also  made  for  grant- 

^hap.  V.,  Sec.  1,  Art.  3. 

2  The  fourth  chapter  was  devoted  to  the  election,  term,  commission,  and  tenure, 
of  delegates  to  the  Continental  Congress. 

3  Into  the  New  Hampshire  Constitution  of  1784  this  section  was  introduced 
almost  bodily,  although  with  slight  changes,  as  of  "  economy  "  for  "  frugality," 
and  of  "  sobriety  "  for  "  good  humor." 


264  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [264 

ing  to  the  inhabitants  both  of  towns  and  of  unincorporated 
plantations  an  opportunity,  in  the  year  1795,  to  express 
"their  sentiments  on  the  necessity  or  expediency  of  revising 
the  Constitution,"  an  affirmative  action  on  which  was  to  be 
followed   by  the  summoning  of  a  constitutional  convention. 

§  3.  Submission  of  the  Constitution 

The  new  constitution  and  the  accompanying  address  of  the 
constituent  convention  were  immediately  distributed  to  the 
several  boards  of  selectmen,  and  for  a  second  time  the  people 
of  Massachusetts  were  called  upon  to  exercise  the  highest 
function  of  a  state  in  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  a  proposed 
form  of  government.  Again  the  vigor  and  the  breadth  of 
the  political  education  of  the  people  were  apparent  and  were 
influential.  As  was  the  case  two  years  before,  the  action 
was  much  more  than  one  of  assent  or  of  dissent.  The  re- 
fusal to  consider  the  instrument  en  bloc  led  to  a  multitude  of 
local  discussions  on  each  paragraph,  resulted  in  a  bewilder- 
ing variety  of  action,  and  occasioned  the  production  of  a 
mass  of  material,  controversial  and  explanatory,  by  which 
the  towns  aimed  to  establish  the  reasonableness  of  their 
views  and  votes.  Considering  the  large  majority  secured 
against  the  constitution  of  1778  by  public  criticism,  the  still 
larger  mass  of  criticisms  and  queries  and  suggestions  di- 
rected against  the  constitution  of  1780  rendered  the  success- 
ful ratification  of  the  latter  document  problematical.  How- 
ever, owing  to  the  striking  variety  of  preferences  and  criti- 
cisms with  reference  to  the  several  parts  of  the  document,  a 
dangerously  large  negative  vote  was  approached  in  only  a 
few  cases ;  and  fortunately  even  in  those  the  towns  often  ex- 
pressed their  willingness  to  yield  their  opposition  rather  than 
by  it  to  cause  the  defeat  of  the  last  step  toward  reconstruction. 

The  process  of  submission  was  made  sufficiently  simple  by 
the  undisturbed  continuance  of  the  local  governments;  the 


265]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  26$ 

action  of  the  town-meeting  was  direct  and  effective,  and  even 
for  a  work  of  so  important  a  nature  there  was  little  delay- 
aside  from  that  occasioned  by  the  adjournments  of  the  town- 
meetings  to  afford  to  their  committees  time  for  the  prepara- 
tion of  their  reports.  In  the  adoption  of  these  reports,  of 
varying  size  and  excellence,  the  towns  formally  and  deliber- 
ately expressed  their  views ;  some  reached  the  end  more 
simply  by  single  direct  votes,  but  the  number  of  such  latter 
cases  was  small  enough  to  give  to  the  series  the  type  of  the 
former.  In  their  mode  of  action1  and  report2  there  was 
general  similarity ;  in  the  contents  of  the  returns  there  were 
shown  the  extremes  of  divergence  ;  and  by  the  material  of 
the  reports  a  wide  range  of  political  theory  and  practice  was 
covered.  Hardly  a  point  escaped  the  notice  of  the  local 
politician.  Thus  even  the  address  of  the  convention  drew 
from  Medway  the  admission  that,  although  no  part  of  the 
constitution,  it  was  "not  onely  Polite  but  very  Plosible."3 
Bellingham,  with  an  effort  at  sarcasm,  likewise  voted:  "We 
agreed  the  Address  set  forth  before  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  no 
Part  of  the  forme  of  Government."4  So,  too,  the  section  on 
Harvard    University,  although  a  portion  giving  rise  to    no 

1  But  Cf.  Gloucester,  May  22,  1780:  "The  Constitution  was  read,  &  those  for 
accepting  were  desired  to  walk  round  the  Meeting  House  to  the  Eastward  & 
those  against  to  walk  the  other  way — 48  Walked  to  Eastward,  none  the  other  way. 
Col.  Foster  and  Capt.  Sargent  said  they  objected  to  it."     Lincoln  Papers. 

2  As  a  type  of  several,  Cf  So.  Brimfield,  whose  selectmen,  May  29,  1780,  wrote 
on  the  back  of  a  printed  copy  of  the  Constitution  :  "pursuant  to  the  Resolve  of 
the  Convention  we  have  Laid  this  Constitution  and  Frame  of  Government  before 
our  town  and  they  have  after  mature  Consideration  voted  as  we  have  inserted  in 
the  foregoing  pages."  A/ass.  Archives.  E.g.,  the  vote  of  Stockbridge  is  en- 
closed in  the  Moderator's  letter  of  appointment  to  one  of  the  Delegates;  the 
letter  ends :  "  P.  S. — Your  Family  is  well." 

3  Dated  June  6,  Mass.  Archives.  The  material  attributed  to  the  Mass.  Archives 
without  volume  or  page  has  been  drawn  from  a  package  of  manuscripts  which 
had  not,  at  the  time  of  examination,  been  bound  or  numbered. 

4  April  24-June  5,  Mass.  Archives. 


266  FA  OM  PR  O  VINCI  A  L   TO  COMMON  WE  A  LTII  \  2  66 

strenuous  contest,  occasioned  in  Petersham  the  fear  that  the 
institution  would  endanger  the  liberties  of  the  public  through 
its  excess  of  corporate  riches,  while  its  rejection  by  Belling- 
ham  was  coupled  with  a  suggestion  that  the  accounts  of  the 
institution  be  published.  The  further  observation  was 
added:  "  We  have  litle  kowledge  of  said  University."1  In 
the  treatment  of  more  important  matters  there  was  an  evident 
thoroughness,  from  Medway's  proposal  of  a  governor's  mes- 
sage at  every  session  of  the  assembly  to  Chelsea's  vote,  "That 
the  Scheme  of  Rotation  be  adopted  in  the  principal  Depart- 
ment of  Government."2 

The  lack  of  a  bill  of  rights  contributed  materially  toward 
the  rejection  of  the  constitution  of  1778;  in  1780  some  of 
the  sharpest  discussions  were  occasioned  by  the  contents  of 
the  new  bill  of  rights.  Especially  did  the  third  article 
arouse  the  public.  Ashfield  bluntly  declared  that  this  was 
"  unconstitutional  to  human  Nature,  And  no  Precept  in  ye 
word  of  God  to  Support  it."  To  the  people  was  given  the 
power  to  invest  the  legislature  with  authority  to  require 
local  provision  for  "  the  institution  of  the  public  worship  of 
God,  and  of  public  instruction  in  piety,  religion,  and  moral- 
ity;" and  to  enjoin  attendance  upon  such  services.  This, 
with  its  context,  the  town  of  Middleborough  declared  to  be 
"  unmeaning  or  otherwise  admits  of  Different  meanings." 
With  more  dignity  Granville  objected,  because  "  True  Reli- 
gion has  evidently  declined  &  been  currupted  by  the  inter- 
ference of  Statemen  &  Politicians."  Gorham  opposed  the 
article  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an  invasion  of  property 
rights.3  Bellingham  demanded  freedom  of  worship  and  con- 
science, and  opposed  compulsory  rates  for  church  support. 
Such  rates,  too,  were  opposed  in  the  JSIassacJiusetts  Spy,*  by 

1  Report  attested,  June  5,  1780,  Mass.  Archives. 

:1  May  9-June  1,  Mass.  Archives. 

1  Boston  Gazette,  No.  1346;  June  12,  1780.         4No.  471,  May  18,  1780. 


267]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  267 

"Libertatis  Amici,"  who  threatened  that  thousands  would 
refuse  submission  to  such  an  establishment.  In  the  Boston 
town-meeting  this  third  article  occasioned  "  much  but  candid 
debate,"1  which  ended  in  the  proposal  of  the  article  in  a 
modified  form,  and  in  the  statement  of  the  position  of 
Boston  as  a  recognition  of  the  freedom  of  the  minority, 
while  stress  was  also  laid  upon  the  necessity  of  some  religious 
establishments  for  all,  and  for  which  all  should  pay.2  But 
even  the  modification  suggested  by  Boston  was  opposed. 
Reasons  for  such  opposition  were  promptly  given  by  "  A 
Freeholder,"  who,  insisting  upon  the  incompetency  of  the 
civil  powers  to  deal  with  religious  questions,  opposed  both 
compulsory  payments  and  legislative  control  of  the  clergy.3 
The  vigorous  debate  in  the  convention  on  the  question  of  the 
civil  establishment  of  religion  was  repeated  in  the  press. 
Such  writers  as  "  Irenaeus,  a  Member  of  Convention,"  de- 
fended article  3,  and  his  attention  was  mainly  given  to 
answering  the  "  extemporaneous  gabblings  "  of  "  Philanthro- 
pes,"  the  opponent  of  the  article,  who  would  suggest  that 
the  effort  to  legislate  for  conscience  and  religion  implied  a 
charge  of  insufficiency  against  God's  law.  "This  savors  of 
fifth  monarchy  enthusiasm,  that  all  civil  government  ought 
to  be  pulled  down,  that  king  Jesus  alone  may  rule:  .  .  .  "4 

1  Letter  of  Samuel  Adams,  Adams  Papers,  Bancroft  Collection.  He  wrote  also  : 
"  The  Town  of  Boston  have  been  in  Meeting  three  Days  upon  this  important 
Affair.  The  Town  have  unanimously  agreed  to  the  Constitution  with  a  few 
Alterations  (I  think  for  the  better)  except  the  Third  Article." 

2  Mass.  Archives  ;   Cf.  Boston  Gazette,  No.  1342,  May  15,  1780. 

3  Boston  Gazette,  No.  1343,  May  22,  1780. 

*  Boston  Gazette,  Nos.  1349,  1350,  July  3,  10, 1780.  Articles  by  "  Philanthropos  " 
appeared  in  the  Boston  Gazette,  Nos.  1350,  1353,  1355,  1356,  dwelling  on  the 
method,  not  the  fact,  of  supporting  worship.  He  cites  Penn.,  N.  Y.,  N.  J.,  and 
Va.  on  confining  the  civil  powers  to  civil  matters.  "  Irenaeus "  has  articles  in 
Boston  Gazette,  Nos.  1349,  1350,  and  one  continued  article  in  Boston  Gazette, 
Nos.  1365,  1370,  1373,  1374,  Oct.  23,  Nov.  27,  Dec.  18,  25,  1780.  He  claims  a 
victory  for  the  supporters  of  Article  3. 


268  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [268 

The  bill  of  rights  in  its  sixteenth  article  stated  that  the 
liberty  of  the  press  was  essential  to  freedom,  and  so  should 
not  be  restrained.  This  drew  from  the  town  of  Dunstable1 
a  plea  for  the  restraint  of  the  press,  lest  they  "  Dishonour 
god  by  printing  herasy;"  and  Chelsea2  asked  for  the 
article  the  following  addition  :  "  But  as  its  freedom  is  not 
such  as  to  Exempt  any  printer  or  printers  from  being 
answerable  for  false  Dafamitory  and  abusive  Publications." 
The  other  tendency,  that  toward  unrestrained  expression, 
was  represented  by  Stoughton's3  proposed  addition  of  liberty 
of  speech,  by  Milton's4  inclusion  of  freedom  of  speech  in 
town-meetings,  and  by  Boston's  insistence  upon  freedom  of 
speech  for  public  men,  "  an  essential  and  darling  right  of 
every  member  of  a  free  state."  5  The  position  of  the  towns 
on  the  general  subject  of  absolute  personal  freedom  was  in- 
dicated from  another  point  of  view  in  the  various  votes  oc- 
casioned by  the  article  on  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  With 
abundant  demands  for  the  fullest  toleration  of  personal  ac- 
tivity, there  appeared  at  points  a  lamentable  absence  of 
breadth.  Thus  a  strong  and  wide  expression  was  given  to 
the  demand  for  the  qualification  of  oaths  of  office  by  the  in- 
sertion of  the  word  "  Protestant"  either  before  or  in  place  of 
the  word  "  Christian."  The  town  of  Lexington6  presented  a 
long  reason  for  inserting  this  "word,  which  took  Rise  from 
the  pious,  noble  and  truly  heroic  Stand,  which  LutJier  and  the 
first  Reformers,  .  .  .  made,"  and  Roxbury7  voted  that  such 
insertion  "  seems  to  us  necessary  to  secure  the  peace  and 
tranquility  of  the  State,  as  well  as  to  the  promotion  of  that 
Religion  which  our  venerable  Forefathers  suffered  every- 
thing but  death,  to  establish." 

1  May  15-30,  1780,  Mass.  Archives.  2May  9,  23,  June  1,  1780,  Ibid. 

3  May  24-31,  1780,  Mass.  Archives.  4  May  22,  1780,  Ibid. 

5  May  12:  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1342,  May  15,  1780.     The  action  of  Boston,  in 
full,  is  in  Boston  Town  Records,  xxvi.,  125-135. 

6  May  22,  June  5,  1780,  Mass.  Archives.         7  May  17,  1780,  Ibid. 


269]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  269 

The  important  question  of  the  suffrage  qualification  drew 
forth  a  series  of  proposals  expressing  mainly  the  relative 
importance  attributed  in  each  locality  to  property  and  to 
polls.  It  was  usually  a  matter  of  degree ;  but  again  there 
were  instances  in  which  a  property  qualification  was  not 
even  given  consideration.  Thus,  while  Wrentham1  voted 
simply,  "  that  the  representatives  elected  in  each  town  ought 
to  be  Representatives  of  the  property  as  well  as  the  per- 
sons," the  town  of  Richmond2  would  ask  for  no  qualification 
but  the  possession  of  a  certificate  of  "  sober  Life  and  Con- 
versation "  given  to  the  voter  by  the  selectmen.  The  town  of 
Colerain3  would  grant  the  suffrage  to  every  male  of  full  age 
who  should  be  recognized  as  "  a  friend  to  the  Independance 
of  said  State  &  of  Sober  Life  and  Conversation,"  and  the 
extreme  was  reached  by  Stoughton4  when,  in  connection 
with  the  inconsistent  proposal  that  the  suffrage  should  be 
granted  to  all  resident,  tax-paying  males  of  full  age,  the  town 
declared:  "  Ye  right  of  election  is  not  a  civil ;  but  it  is  na- 
tural right,  which  ought  to  be  consider'd  as  a  principle  cor- 
ner-stone in  ye  foundation  for  ye  frame  of  Government  to 
stand  on;  consequently  it  is  unsystematical  and  contrary  to 
ye  rules  of  architecture  to  place,  or  make  it  dependent  on 
ye  frame,   .   .   ." 

The  narrow  range  of  influence  of  many  of  the  views  at 
this  time  brought  forward,  limited  strictly  the  results  attain- 
able therefrom.  Thus  the  constitution,  as  established,  did 
not  greatly  differ  from  the  constitution  of  the  convention 
either  in  regard  to  freedom  of  conscience,  freedom  of  expres- 
sion, or  the  suffrage.  Equally  without  definite  results  were 
the  many  proposals  to  alter  the  provisions  relative  to  repre- 
sentation. The  constitution  passed  from  submission  to 
promulgation  with  no  change  even  in  this  part,  with  reference 

1  May  8,  26,  1780,  Mass.  Archives.  2  May  29, 17S0,  Hid. 

3  May  26,  17CO,  Ibid.  *  May  24-31,  1780,  Ibid. 


270  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [270 

to  which  so  many  towns  proposed  abundant  alterations. 
Their  proposals,  to  be  sure,  consisted  in  a  variety  of  mathe- 
matical statements  ;  of  this  character  were  the  larger  number 
of  schemes  presented,  although  in  the  history  of  the  move- 
ment note  should  be  made  of  the  action  of  those  towns 
which  insisted  upon  the  propriety  and  the  justice  of  accord- 
ing representation  to  every  town.1  In  addition  to  such  a 
claim,  the  town  of  Bellingham,  for  instance,  would  grant  two 
representatives  to  every  town  of  400  taxable  polls ;  three  to 
a  town  of  800  such  ;  four  to  one  of  1 ,600 ;  and  five,  the  maxi- 
mum representation,  to  a  town  of  3,200  taxable  polls.  The 
town  of  Monson  also  took  five  as  the  largest  representation 
to  be  granted  to  the  most  populous  towns,  and  would  grant 
fewer  representatives  to  the  other  towns  in  proportion  "  to 
their  bigness."  The  town  of  Medway  proposed  that  eight 
should  be  the  largest  number  of  representatives  allowed;2 
and  there  was  frequently  a  recognition  of  the  fitness  of 
allowing  to  such  towns  as  Boston  an  especially  large  repre- 
sentation. Monson  would  not  limit  to  Boston  the  maximum 
representation,  and  Oakham3  would  allow  more  than  one  rep- 
resentative only  to  Boston  and  five  or  six  other  seaport 
towns  of  some  size  ;  while  Lanesborough  would  recognize 
three  grades  and  give  to  Boston,  as  in  the  constitution,  four 
representatives,  to  the  six  towns  next  in  size  two  representa- 
tives each,  and  to  all  other  towns  only  a  single  representative 
each.  At  the  same  time  the  ratio  of  representation  was 
subjected  to  numerous  schemes  of  revision ;  and  abandon- 
ment of  the  long  established  unit  of  representation  was  even 

1  E.g.,  Mansfield,  Norton,  Wilbrahani,  Wrentham  Bellingham. 

2  Giving  1  representative  for  100  voters,  2  for  300  voters,  3  for  600,  4  for  ICOO, 
5  for  1500,  6  for  2100,  7  for  2S00. 

:1  Oakham  made  a  second  proposal,  assigning  one  representative  to  all  towns,  2 
representatives  to  towns  of  500  ratable  polls,  3  to  towns  of  1000,  4  to  towns  of 
1500,  etc. 


271]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  2yi 

threatened.  Presumably  with  laudable  motives,  the  town  of 
New  Salem  suggested  a  house  of  not  over  200  members  from 
as  many  districts,  and  claimed  that  on  such  an  entirely  new 
arrangement  could  be  established  a  plan  of  permanence.1 
But  amid  these  inventions  appeared  a  distinct  type  in  Athol, 
which  town  conservatively  recommended  the  reestablishment 
of  the  laws  of  1770  concerning  representation.  The  pro- 
posals of  future  constitutional  changes  and  the  efforts  to 
revive  earlier  practices  alike  were  fruitless.  Excellence  of 
theory  without  sufficient  ballots  was  unavailing;  a  mass  of 
opinion  was  suggestive  and  at  some  time  might  prove  useful; 
but  for  the  present  the  constitution  of  1780  was  to  stand  as 
the  embodiment  of  what  the  men  of  Massachusetts  regarded 
as  the  highest  and  truest  political  conceptions  of  their  day. 
Not  only  was  it  so  in  regard  to  the  points  mentioned,  but 
also  in  regard  to  all  points  at  issue.  Even  the  many 
demands  for  radical  change  in  the  construction  of  the  legis- 
lative branch  effected  no  result;2  and  in  the  qualifications  for 
office  holders  no  change  was  made,  in  spite  of  Middlebor- 
ough's  pungent  comment:  "We  find  that  money  makes 
Senators  and  not  men :...." 

The  action  of  the  people  in  their  consideration  of  the  pro- 
posed form  of  government  thus  involved  expression  upon  all 
matters  of  theory  and  of  practice  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  political  philosophy  of  the  time.  Although  in- 
effectual, the  activity  of  the  towns  was  of  more  than  transitory 
significance.  It  expressed  the  trend  of  public  thought; 
but  it  did   more.     A  view  of  the  activity  of  the  year  can- 

1  Likewise  Mendon  proposed  a  house  of  representatives  from  as  many  districts 
as  there  were  members. 

2  On  this  point  West  Springfield  and  Southborough  voted  to  abolish  the  senate; 
Westminster,  Middleborough,  Athol,  Oakham,  Walpole,  Belhngham  and  Medway 
would  abolish  the  council;  Petersham,  Athol  and  Bellingham  would  discard  a 
governor.  Petersham  evolved  a  plan  of  giving  to  each  house  a  negative  on  the 
other  for  seven  days,  to  be  followed  by  a  joint  session. 


272  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  \2"J2 

not  be  concluded  without  reference  to  the  frequent  and  out- 
spoken assertions  of  local  independence.1  Thus  there  were 
repeated  demands  for  the  establishment  of  a  registry  of  deeds 
and  of  a  probate  court  in  every  town  ;2  the  election  and  con- 
trol of  the  appropriate  officers  therefor  was  considered  a 
proper  function  of  the  town,3  and  there  are  indications,  as 
well,  of  a  desire  to  increase  the  prominence  of  the  county  as 
an  electoral  and  administrative  unit  at  the  sacrifice  of  some 
of  the  functions  of  the  larger  unit.4  The  beginnings  of  con- 
stitutional disintegration  and  the  prevalence  of  pronounced 
divergence  of  views,  nevertheless,  failed  to  produce  the  un- 
fortunate result  which  they  seemed  to  portend.5     Especially 

1  Cf.  vote  of  Lee,  March  9,  1779,  "  that  we  hold  ourselves  bound  to  support  the 
Civil  Authority  of  this  State  for  the  sum  of  one  year,  and  Bound  to  obey  the  laws 
of  this  State."  Quoted  in  Hyde,  Centennial  History  of  Lee,  1 61.  Berkshire 
county,  throughout  the  period,  was  continually  asserting  local  rights  and  hamper- 
ing the  provincial  government.  Thus,  on  August  26,  1778,  a  convention  of  town 
delegates  had  been  held  at  Pittsfield,  by  which  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  General 
Court  asking  that  a  special  convention  should  be  called  to  form  a  constitution  and 
bill  of  rights.  They  admitted  that  their  county  was  the  first  in  which  the  royal 
courts  had  been  closed,  but  they  denied  that  they  were  a  "  mobbish,  ungovernable, 
refractory,  licentious,  and  disolute  People."  If  their  appeal  should  not  be  granted, 
they  would  petition  the  Committee  of  Safety,  and  if  given  no  satisfaction  by  them, 
they  suggested  that  "  there  are  other  States,  which  have  Constitutions  who  will  we 
doubt  not,  as  bad  as  we  are,  gladly  receive  us,  .  .  ."  This  was  signed  by  26 
delegates  from  18  towns,  and  was  read  in  the  council,  October  16,  1778.  Mass. 
Archives,  184:  196-198. 

'2Thus,  as  to  one  point,  or  both;  Bellingham,  Medvvay,  Wrentham,  Holliston, 
Scituate,  Warwick;  the  town  of  Lanesborough  voted  "That  there  be  a  Court  of 
Probate  in  every  rigiment."  Cf.  Daggett,  History  of  Attlcbororgh,  123;  Stough- 
ton,  Mass.  Archives,  160  :  266-277. 

"The  action  of  Bellingham  on  this  is  especially  plain. 

4 Thus  Wilbraham  would  have  the  counties  elect  annually  the  justices  of  the 
Superior  Court,  the  judges  of  probate,  and  the  justices  of  the  peace.  Wilbra- 
ham proposed  the  election  by  counties  of  justices  of  the  Inferior  Court,  justices 
of  the  peace,  and  judges  of  probate;  and  also  urged  an  annual  election  of 
judges  of  the  Superior  Court.  Bellingham  suggests  annual  county  assemblies  for 
the  election  of  all  county  officers. 

5  Cf.    Works  o/"John  Adams,  IX.,  510,  511. 


273]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  273 

striking  was  the  result  in  view  of  the  movements  from  among 
which  examples  have  been  drawn.1  Equally  noteworthy  was 
it  that  during  this  period  Samuel  Adams  could  write  that 
the  "  great  business  was  carried  through  with  much  good 
humor  by  the  people,  even  in  Berkshire,  where  some  persons 
led  us  to  expect  it  would  meet  with  many  obstructions." 
Yet  in  his  next  sentence  he  indicated  one  potent  cause  of 
the  final  harmony  when  he  wrote  :  "  Never  was  a  good 
constitution  more  needed  than  at  this  juncture."2 

The  constitutional  convention  had,  on  March  2,  adjourned 
for  a  recess  which  should  cover  the  period  allowed  for  the 
popular  consideration  of  its  work;  the  concluding  session  of 
the  convention  opened,  on  June  7,  in  the  Brattle  Street  meet- 
ing-house at  Boston.  The  membership  was  somewhat 
changed  by  the  presentation  of  the  credentials  of  new  mem- 
bers,3 but  the  earlier  organization  and  practice  in  deliberative 
bodies    allowed    an    immediate    consideration    of   the    prin- 

1  But  Hawley  in  his  criticism  wrote :  "  I  am  well  informed  Gentlemen  that  a 
majority  of  the  voters  in  divers  towns  have  been  induced  to  give  their  sanction  to 
the  said  form  of  Government  with  all  its  imperfections  from  an  earnest  desire  that 
some  form  of  Government  may  be  more  firmly  established  in  the  State,  than  that 
which  at  present  is  exercised,  and  that,  unless  we  should  immediately  unite  in 
[some]  plan  we  shall  fall  into  absolute  anarchy  and  never  unite  [in]  any  form 
whatever.  I  am  Sirs,  fully  satisfied  that  the  danger  of  such  an  event,  has  been 
unreasonably  and  extravagantly  magnified  by  divers  individuals." 

Referring  to  the  resolution  of  March  2,  1780,  and  supposing  an  illiberal  inter- 
pretation thereof  by  the  Convention,  Hawley  made  this  further  attack :  "  The 
case  in  truth  will  be  That  the  State  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay,  will  have  an  Unad- 
vised, unconsulted,  undiscussed,  undigested,  tautological,  ragged,  inconsistent, 
and  in  some  parts  unmeaning,  not  to  say  futile  plan,  established  in  it,  for  its  con- 
stitution of  Government."     Hawley  Papers,  II.,  Bancroft  Collection. 

2  Samuel  Adams  to  John  Adams,  July  10,  1780.  Wells,  Life  of  Samuel  Adams, 
HI.,  103.  So  Pittsfield  in  its  instructions  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  Consti- 
tution would  be  accepted  by  two-thirds  of  the  voters,  "  as  the  Reins  of  Government 
are  so  relaxed  &  this  County  in  particular  so  long  deprived  of  all  Law."  Cf, 
Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proceedings,  2  Series,  VIII.,  290. 

a  New  members  reported  as  follows:  10  on  June  7,  12  on  June  8,  3  on  June  9, 
1  on  June  12, 1  on  June  13;  Journal  of  the  Convention,  170-178. 


274  FROM  PROVINCIAL   TO  COMMONWEALTH  [274 

cipal,  and  practically  the  sole,  work  of  the  session,  the  recep- 
tion of  the  returns  of  the  action  of  the  towns  and  the 
possible  preliminaries  of  promulgation.  The  returns  received 
were  at  once  referred  to  a  committee,1  which,  on  July  8  and 
July  12,  made  preliminary  reports,  stating  on  the  latter  date 
that  returns  from  174  towns  had  been  received,  and  express- 
ing the  difficulty  of  making  immediately  a  complete  report.2 
The  method  of  local  procedure,  which  involved  the  possi- 
bility of  a  distinct  vote  by  each  town  on  every  section  of  the 
constitution,  rendered  necessary  an  elaborate  tabulation  by 
the  committee. 3     From  this  they  were  able  to  report  a  total 

1  At  first  a  committee  of  5;  7  were  added,  and  later  12  were  added;  finally,  on 
June  t2,  the  number  was  further  increased  by  5.    Ibid.,  170-178. 

2  On  June  13  it  was  voted  that  thereafter  no  more  returns  be  received.  "Jour- 
nal of  the  Convention,  178.  On  June  14  the  returns  of  2  towns  were  received, 
and  on  June  15  those  of  3  towns.     Ibid.,  179. 

:i  Large  portions  of  the  Committee's  manuscripts  are  in  the  Mass.  Archives, 
although  not  bound  or  numbered  at  the  time  the  writer  used  them. 

Thus  there  are  posted  in  one  set,  but  without  totals  completed,  the  returns  for 
Plymouth,  Barnstable  and  York  Counties.  Provision  is  made  for  14,  10  and  17 
towns  respectively,  but  some  returns,  especially  from  Barnstable  County,  were  not 
given. 

Another  set  was  stated  to  contain  the  returns  of  Middlesex,  Dukes  and  Nantucket 
Counties;  the  word  Middlesex  was  crossed  off,  but  evidently  the  table  contains 
returns  simply  from  Middlesex  County.  The  reports  are  from  42  towns.  In  the 
table  one  column  throughout  is  given  to  the  votes  in  case  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  town  voting  did  not  prevail;  30  double  columns  are  given  to  the  votes  on 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  70  are  given  to  the  votes  on  the  body  of  the  Constitution. 
Of  these  towns,  only  two,  Cambridge  with  41  votes,  and  Townshend  with  29  votes, 
gave  a  unanimous  vote  throughout  in  the  affirmative.  As  to  the  numbers  partici- 
pating in  these  acts,  it  may  be  noted  that  Charlcstown  recorded  21  voters,  "New- 
town" 49,  Chelmsford  103  and  Concord  147. 

The  table  for  Hampshire  County  shows  a  total  of  over  1800  voters;  in  few  cases 
was  the  negative  vote  over  100.  Article  3  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  was  accepted  by 
a  vote  of  1 135  to  237.  A  vote  conditioned  on  the  success  of  their  amendments 
was  in  the  affirmative,  115  to  51,  although  peculiarly  defective. 

The  table  for  Worcester  County  shows  over  2500  voters;  returns  from  44  towns 
are  scheduled,  among  which  are  only  three  deficiencies.     Article  3  of  the  Bill  of 


275]  G0  VERNMENT  IN  MASS  A  CHUSE  TTS  27$ 

vote  of  5654  for  the  constitution  and  2047  against  it.1  With 
the  detailed  report  before  it  the  convention  proceeded  to  the 
last  stages  of  the  process  in  hand.  Each  article  of  the  de- 
claration and  of  the  "frame"  was  read  separately  before  the 
convention  and  on  each  article  in  turn  the  question  was  put : 
"  Is  it  your  opinion  that  the  people  have  accepted  of  this 
article  ? — Which,  upon  every  individual  article,  passed  in 
the  affirmative  by  a  very  great  majority."2  The  convention 
refused  to  take  a  vote  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  constitution 
"  in  gross,"  but  a  motion  "  that  the  People  of  the  State  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  have  accepted  the  Constitution  as  it 
stands  in  the  printed  form,  submitted  to  their  revision  .  .  ." 
was  "  passed  in  the  affirmative  by  a  very  great  majority."3 
The  formalities  of  sanction  being  thus  completed,  the  con- 
vention further,4  apart  from  provision  for  prospective  pro- 
mulgation, arranged  for  the  inauguration  of  the  first  admin- 
istration under  the  new  forms.  On  this  closing  day  the 
convention   relaxed   sufficiently  to  ask   the  legislature    "  to 

Rights  was  accepted,  by  a  vote  of  1506  to  803.  In  case  amendments  should  not 
prevail  the  vote  was  482  to  65  in  the  affirmative. 

The  table  for  Suffolk  County  includes  24  towns;  if  amendments  prevailed,  the 
vote  was  592  to  34;  if  they  did  not  prevail,  969  to  168.  Boston  voted  for  article  3 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  277  to  140,  and  for  its  own  amendments  of  the  same,  420  to 
140.  Boston's  vote  for  the  Constitution  in  case  amendments  should  not  prevail, 
was  747  to  140. 

1  Mass.  Archives,  223:  192;   cf,  Mass,  Archives.  223:  198-201. 

2  Jotirnal  of 'the  Convention,  180. 

3  Ibid.,  180. 

*  The  Convention  Resolves  of  June  16,  as  to  the  acceptance  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  designation  of  the  last  Wednesday  in  October  as  the  day  for  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  new  government,  with  the  signatures  of  Pres.  Bowdoin  and  Sec'y 
Barrett,  are  in  Afass.  Archives,  171  :   180-182. 

The  same,  attested  by  Pres.  Bowdoin  and  bearing  the  House  endorsements  as 
well  as  the  Council  endorsements  of  June  17  as  to  a  committee  thereon;  and 
bearing  also  the  committee  report  as  to  the  election  day  preacher,  are  in  Mass. 
Archives,  228:  448-451.  Cf.  Mass.  Archives,  228:  447,  458.  These  resolves 
appeared  in  the  Mass.  Spy,  no.  479,  July  13,  1780. 


2^6  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [276 

order  the  provision  for  the  usual  entertainment  had  on  the 
days  of  General  Election,  to  be  made  on  the  last  Wednesday 
in  October  next,"1  but  at  the  same  time  the  members  showed 
their  balance  and  devotion  in  refusing  to  pass  a  resolution 
asking  the  legislature  to  pay  from  the  public  treasury  for  the 
travel  and  attendance  of  members  of  the  convention.2 
Thanksgiving  and  prayer  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Thatcher  con- 
cluded the  proceedings  of  the  day  and  of  the  convention,  and 
the  body  thereupon  dissolved.  Of  its  acts  in  this  last  session 
the  essential  parts  were  announced  to  the  public,  under  date 
of  the  day  of  adjournment,  in  a  proclamation3  by  President 
Bowdoin,  stating  the  acceptance  of  the  constitution  by  two- 
thirds  of  those  voting,  and  announcing  further  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  first  Monday  in  September  as  the  day  of  the 
election  of  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  council  and  senate  ; 
of  any  day  in  October  ten  days  before  the  last  Wednesday 
for  the  election  of  representatives ;  and,  finally,  of  the  last 
Wednesday  in  October  as  the  day  established  for  the  first 
meeting  of  the  Great  and  General  Court  and  for  the  organi- 
zation of  the  new  government. 

1  Journal  of  the  Convention,  183. 

2  Ibid.,  183. 

The  text  is  in  Ibid.,  186,  187. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   TRANSITION    COMPLETED 

In  the  same  month  in  which  the  ratification  of  the  new 
constitution  was  authenticated,  the  General  Court  passed  an 
act,  approved  by  the  council,  June  24,  1780,1  which  provided 
for  the  secure  completion  of  the  last  step  in  the  transition  by 
giving  to  the  council  the  right  to  exercise  powers  of  suffi- 
ciently wide  extent  to  meet  any  further  emergency.  Upon 
this  body  was  conferred,  for  the  period  ending  with  the  ope- 
ration of  the  constitution,  practically  complete  control  of 
civil  and  military  affairs ;  to  it  was  given  the  authority  to 
issue  paper  money,  and  to  negotiate  loans,  under  restrictions 
both  as  to  amount  and  as  to  term,2  on  the  credit  of  the  com- 
monwealth; and  to  it,  as  well,  was  given  the  discretionary 
power  to  call  at  an  earlier  date  a  special  session  of  the  new 
General  Assembly,  the  formation  of  which  was  incident  to 
the  operation  of  the  new  constitution,  and  the  first  meeting 
of  which  had  been  appointed,  in  the  plan  for  the  new  organ- 
ization of  government,  for  the  last  Wednesday  in  October. 
No  exigency  requiring  such  modification  of  the  original  plan 
arose,  and  the  period  of  such  further  provisional  direction 
of  all  commonwealth  affairs  by  the  council  was,  after  some 
four  months,  brought  easily  to  an  end,  after  the  chief  body 
had  prepared  for  the  succession  by  the  issue  of  the  usual 
precepts  for  the  choice  of  a  governor,  lieutenant-governor, 
senate   and    house  of    representatives.     After    the  ordinary 

1  Mass.  Archives,  228  :  464-466. 

2  Limited  to  twelve  months,  and  not  to  exceed  ,£60,000. 

277]  277 


278  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [278 

processes  of  election1  and  return,  the  representatives  met  in 
Boston  at  the  appointed  time. 

John  Hancock,2  the  newly  elected  governor,  was  then 
inaugurated.  By  him  and  by  the  legislators  were  taken  the 
appropriate  oaths  of  office.  Before  them  all  the  customary 
election  sermon  was  preached  by  Dr.  Cooper,  in  "  the  Old 
Brick  Meeting-House,"  upon  the  highly  significant  text 
from  Jeremiah :  "And  their  congregation  shall  be  estab- 
lished before  me ;  and  their  nobles  shall  be  of  themselves ; 
and  their  Governor  shall  proceed  from  the  midst  of  them."3 
The  proceedings  of  the  day  were,  finally,  given  balance  and 
completeness  by  an  "  entertainment"  in  Fanueil  Hall,  with 
its  round  of  thirteen  toasts. 

The  formal  installation  of  the  government  under  the 
first  constitution  of  the  commonwealth  having  been  thus  ef- 
fected,4 the  more  detailed  work  was  at  once  begun.  On  the 
last  day  of  the  month,  the  house  and  the  council  appointed 
a  committee  to  inform  the  governor  that  they  were  organ- 
ized and  ready  to  proceed  to  business.5  The  governor  on 
the  same  day  formally  addressed  the  legislative  bodies  in  an 

*A  letter  to  Samuel  Adams,  dated  September  3,  1780,  states:  "To-morrow 
will  probably  usher  in  the  first  election  of  Government,  under  the  New  plan 
....  Lieut.  Gvr.  probably  Cushing,  your  friend  Warren  however  is  a  Candidate, 
But  he  has  too  much  integrity,  steadiness,  consistency,  &  the  genuine  principles 
of  a  republican  to  make  much  head  in  times  like  these."  Adams  Papers,  Ban- 
croft Collection. 

2  Cf.  Samuel  Adams,  Philadelphia,  October  17,  1780,  to  his  wife:  "I  had 
reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Hancock  would  be  the  Governor.  I  am  disposed  to 
think,  that  my  Fellow  Citizens  had  upright  Views  in  giving  him  their  Suffrages. 
Many  Circumstances  have  combined  to  make  his  election  appear  to  be  politically 
necessary;  .  .  .  ."  A  variation  reads:  "  honest  and  upright."  Adams  Papers, 
Bancroft  Collection. 

3  Bullock,  Centennial  of  the  Constitution,  35. 

4  An  account  of  the  inauguration,  with  a  list  of  the  members  of  the  new  as- 
sembly, appeared  in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1366,  October  30,  1780. 

5 Mass.  Archives,  229:  455. 


279]  GOVERNMENT  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  2jg 

inaugural,  bearing  largely  upon  matters  naturally  incident  to 
such  an  occasion.1  With  the  completion  of  the  preliminary 
routine  the  new  officers  of  government  entered  upon  the 
regular  and  active  performance  of  their  functions,  and  the 
transition  was  virtually  completed.  Much,  to  be  sure,  re- 
mained to  be  accomplished.  The  completion  of  the  judi- 
ciary establishment  and  the  organization  of  the  executive 
department  were  still  to  be  effected ;  but  all  essentials  were 
attained  in  the  constitution  which  provided,  either  directly 
or  by  definite  delegation,  for  the  exercise  of  all  powers  of 
government,  and  which  afforded  an  ample  basis  for  subse- 
quent development.  The  consideration  of  that  development 
involves  the  history  of  Massachusetts  from  the  time  of  the 
establishment  of  the  commonwealth  to  the  present  day.2 

'The  address  was  printed  in  Boston  Gazette,  no.  1367,  November  6,  17S0. 

'The  reader  should  consult  the  pamphlet  of  67  pages,  Constitution  of  the  Com- 
monwealth of  Massachusetts.  Published  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth. 
Boston,  i8gb,  which  gives  the  various  amendments  and  cites  numerous  judicial 
decisions  bearing  upon  the  constitution. 


28o  FROM  PROVINCIAL  TO  COMMONWEALTH  [28o 


NOTE 

The  following  list  is  given  as  a  means  of  identification  and  not  as  a  bibliography. 
More  newspaper  and  manuscript  collections  than  indicated  have  been  consulted, 
although  not  used  in  the  present  work.  It  should  be  stated  also  that  practically 
everything  in  print  bearing  upon  this  period,  both  in  Massachusetts  and  in  the 
other  colonies,  has  been  consulted;  secondary  material,  however,  has  proved  of 
little  service.  Use  has  been  made  of  the  libraries  of  the  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  the  Connecticut  Historical  Society,  the  Essex  Institute,  Harvard  Univer- 
sity, the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  the 
Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the.  libraries  of  several  other  corpora- 
tions, as  well  as  of  the  Library  of  Congress.  Especial  mention  should  be  made 
of  ample  facilities  accorded  by  the  staff  of  the  Lenox  Library,  now  merged  in  The 
New  York  Public  Library,  Astor,  Lenox  and  Tilden  Foundations.  Certain  cita- 
tions from  the  Adams  Papers  are  necessarily  incomplete,  but  more  detail  would  be 
of  little  value,  as  the  collection  is  soon  to  be  rearranged  and  improved. 

LIST   OF   TITLES 

A.  Mamiscripts,  original  and  copied 

The  volumes  indicated  by  the  first  seven  titles  are  in  the  Lenox  Library  of  The 
New  York  Public  Library,  Astor,  Lenox  and  Tilden  Foundations.  For  detailed 
description,  see  Sabin,  J.  F.,  Library  of  the  late  Hon.  George  Bancroft,  n.  p.  [1892]. 

Samuel  Adams  Papers,  9  vols. 

Joseph  Hawley  Papers,  2  vols. 

Letters  of  Thomas  Hutchinson  to  Israel  Williams.  1  vol. 

Revolutionary  Correspondence,  3  vols. 

Ezra  Stiles  Papers,  1  vol. 

Autograph  Letters  of  Joseph  Warren,  1  vol. 

W.  V.  Wells  Papers,  Samuel  Adams  and  the  American  Revolution,  3  vols. 

Lincoln  Papers.  Transcripts  from  town  records  of  Mass.,  collected  btf  Wm. 
Lincoln,  in  the  Library  of  the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Worcester,  Mass. 

Massachusetts  Archives.  A  Collection  of  Original  Documents,  in  the  Bureau 
of  Archives,  Ofhce  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Commonwealth,  Boston,  Mass. 

Sparks  Papers.  A  Collection  of  Documents  formed  by  Jared  Sparks,  in  the 
Harvard  College  Library.  See  Library  of  Harvard  University.  Bibliographical 
Contributions,  edited  by  Justin  Winsor,  Librarian.  Aro.  22.  Calendar  of  the 
Sparks  Mamiscripts  in  Harvard  College  Library,  by  Justin  Winsor.  Cam- 
bridge, 1889. 

Stevens,  B.  F.  Facsimiles  of  Matiuscripts  in  European  Archives  Relating  to 
America,  1773-17SJ,  with  Descriptions,  Editorial  /Votes,  Collations,  References, 
and  'Translations.  London,  1889-  A  copy  is  in  the  Library  of  Columbia 
University. 


2 8 1  ]  GO  VERNMEN T  IN  MA SSA CHUSE TTS  2 8  I 

B.  Newspapers 

Boston  Evening  Post,  The.    T.  and  J.  Fleet,  Boston. 

Boston  Gazette,  and  the  Country  Journal,  The.  Edes  and  Gill  [Benj.  Edes; 
Benj.  Edes  and  Sons.]     Boston  [Watertown]. 

Connecticut  Courant,  The.  [  The  Connecticut  Courant,  and  Hartford  Weekly 
Intelligencer '.]     Eben.  Watson  [Watson  and  Goodwin]  Hartford. 

Connecticut  Gazette ;  and  the  Universal  Intelligencer.  \_7'he  New  London 
Gazette^     Timothy  Green,  New  London. 

Connecticut  Journal,  and  New  Haven  Post-Boy,  The.  [  The  Connecticut 
Journal.^     T.  and  S.  Green,  New  Haven. 

Continental  Journal,  and  Weekly  Advertiser,  The.     J.  Gill,  Boston. 

Essex  Gazette,  The.  \_A~ew  England  Chronicle ;  or,  the  Essex  Gazette,  The. 
.Yew  England  Chronicle,  The.  Independent  Chronicle,  The,  q  v.]  S.  and  E. 
Hall  [Powars  and  Willis],  Salem  [Cambridge,  Boston]. 

Essex  Journal  and  Nezv  Hampshire  Packet,  'The.  [  The  Essex  Journal^  J. 
Mycall  and  H.  W.  Tinges  [J.  Mycall],  Newburyport. 

Ereeman's  Journal,  or  New  Hampshire  Gazette,  The.  Benj.  Dearborn,  Ports- 
mouth. 

Independent  Chronicle,  The.  [Independent  Chronicle  &°  Universal  Advertiser, 
'The.']     Powars  and  Willis  [Nath'l  Willis],  Boston. 

Massachusetts  Gazette  and  Boston  Post  Boy  and  Advertiser,  The.  Mills  and 
Hicks,  Boston. 

Massachusetts  Gazette  and  the  Boston  Weekly  News  Letter,  The.  Richard 
Draper  [Margaret  Draper],  Boston. 

Massachusetts  Spy,  The.  [7 he  Massachusetts  Spy  or,  7  homas'  Boston  Journal. 
The  Massachusetts  Spy  ;  or,  American  Oracle  of  liberty, .]  I.  Thomas,  Boston 
[Worcester]. 

New  England  Chronicle,  The.     Powars  and  Willis,  Boston. 

New  York  Journal;  or,  the  General  Advertiser,  The.    J.  Holt,  New  York. 

New  1  ork  Packet,  and  the  American  Advertiser,  The.     S.  Loudon,  New  York. 

Pennsylvania  Evening  Post,  The.     Benj.  Towne,  Philadelphia. 

Rivingtoii's  New  York  Gazetteer;  or  the  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Hudson 's 
River  and  Quebec  Weekly  Advertiser.  [Rivington's  Gazette,  or  the  Connecticut, 
Hudson's  River,  New  Jersey  and  Quebec  Weekly  Advertiser.  Rivington's  New 
York  Loyal  Gazette.  Rivington's  New  York  Royal  GazetteJ]  J.  Rivington,  New 
York. 

Salem  Gazette,  and  A'eivbury  and  Marblehead  Advertiser,  The.  E.  Russell, 
Salem. 


APPENDIX 


A.  Educational  Institutions  attended  by  the  author 
Boston  Latin  School,  1882-1885. 
Holyoke,  Mass.,  High  School,  1885-1887. 
Amherst  College,  188  7-1 891. 
Columbia  University,  1893- 1895. 

B.  Degrees  and  Appointments 
A.  B.,  1 89 1,  Amherst  College. 
A.  M.,  1894,  Columbia  University. 

Instructor  in  History  and  Latin,  Beloit,  Wis.,  College  Academy, 
1891-1893. 
University  Fellow  in  History,  Columbia  University,  1 894-1 895. 
Prize  Lecturer  on  History,  Columbia  University,  1 895-1 896. 
Assistant  in  History,  Barnard  College,  1895- 
Tutor  in  History,  Columbia  University,  1896- 


46  94     3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


£    SEP  27  72 

INTERLIBRARY    LOANS 

SFP  13  1972 

TWO  WEEKS  FROM  DATE  OF  RECEIPT! 
NON -RENEWABLE 


SEP  27 

OCT    11972 


£  m 


SEC'D  LD-IJRL 
MAR  titm 


Form  L9-Series  444 


Uk^V^k  UF0RM14 

x 
IX  S3 


IMI  III  I II II  INI 

L  006  340  866  0 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  029  325    6 


Ill 


